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

VIPERIAL PARLIAMENT. ROUSE OF LORDS—(YESTERDAY.) The, LORD CHANCELLOR took his seat on the woolsack M fl' e o'clock. PRIVATE BUSINESS. - Bosehettis Estate Bill was read a third time and passed. BIBLE IN INDIA. Tho Marquis of BREADALBANE presented petitions praying that the Bible might not be excluded from any Government plan for the education of the natives of India. ROMAN CATHOLIC RELIEF BILL. Lord LYNDHURST gave notice that to-morrow he should move that this bill be read a second time. Some persons might entertain erroneous views as to the purposes of this bill, but it was merely to enable the other house to convert a resolution they had passed some time ago into a standing order. SICILIAN AFFAIRS. _ _ _ . The Marquis of NORMANBY said he had given notice previously to the noble lord opposite of his intention of asking him a question respecting a statement that had appeared in the Official Gazette of Palermo, to the effect that an accredited officer was about to arrive in this country from that place. He should like to know whether the Government had received any such information, because this country being still in amity with Naples could not receive a Minister appointed by an adven turer who had become possessed of Palermo by force of arms. Lord WODEHOUSE said he had seen the statement re ferred to by the noble lord, but Government had not re ceived any other information. He would take that oppor tunity of informing the noble marquis that despatches had been received from Mr. Elliot, who had, it was said, inter fered with respect to the seizure of two of Garibaldi's steam-vessels. The despatches informed the Government that.the statement was entirely without foundation, as he had not interfered in the matter in any way. Lord BROUGHAM said he would say nothing about " adventurers," and that sort of thing, as he thought that General Garibaldi was worthy of being ranked with all the other potentates of the world. (Hear, hear.) He thought that 999 persons out of every 1,000 heartily wished the gallant general success. The Earl of ELLENBOROUGII had no doubt of the manner that Minister referred to would be received here. lie did not think a braver or better man could be repre sented by any person. (Cheers.) The Marquis of NORMANBY said he would say no thing about Garibaldi not being a good man, but it was the duty of every person to make himself well acquainted with the proceedings that had taken place during the disturbances in Sicily. The published accounts showed that persons, at all events under the con trol of Garibaldi, had committed atrocities of the most re volting kind, and many of the police had been murdered, and women burnt alive. Atrocities had been committed by both parties, and no doubt the accounts that had been re ceived had been very much exaggerated. Lord WODEHOUSE said he thought it was but due to General Garibaldi to state that, from information received officially by the Government, Garibaldi was represented as a most humane man—(hear, hear)—and as being desirous in every way of preventing the recurrence of any of those atrocities that had teen referred to. THE ITALIAN PAPERS. Lord WODEHOUSE then laid on the table of the house the papers he had promised on Monday last relative to Italian affairs. NICARAGUA. The Earl of MALMESBURY asked the noble lord whether he could give him any information as to what had become of the treaty entered into with Nicaragua. Lord WODEHOUSE, who was nearly inaudible, was understood to say that the Government had not yet re ceived official intelligence of its ratification. After some further conversation the subject was allowed to drop. HIGHLAND ROADS AND BRIDGES. Earl 6-RAN - VILLE moved the third reading of this bill. After some brief remarks by Lord Abinger, Lord Pol worth, Lord Redesdale (who moved that the bill be third a third time that day three months), and Lord Belhaven, their lordships divided, when the third reading was carried by a majority of 35 to 23. The Tramways (Scotland) Bill was road a second time. ENDOWED CHARITIES BILL. This bill was read a third time and passed. INLAND BONDING BILL. This bill was also read a third time and passed. lONIAN ISLANDS (MARRIAGES) BILL. This bill was read a second time, and their lordships adjourned. HOUSE OF COMMONS.—(YESTERDAY.) The SPEAKER took the chair at four o'clock. PRIVATE BUSINESS. The following bills were read a second time :—Forest of Dean Central Railway (No. 2), and Industrial Museum (Scotland). • The Everton, &c. Drainage Bill, and West of Fife Mine ral Railway Bill were read a third time and passed. PETITIONS. Several petitions were presented in favour of the repeal of the duty on paper, against the religious profession clause in the Census Bill, against the Sunday Trading Bill, from Manchester praying the house to maintain its privileges avinapaired, against the Highways Road Bill, against the extension of the Wine Licenses Bill to Scotland this session, by Mr. Bright from his constituents ; from Borwick•on-Trent and other places in England, against the alleged :unconstitutional aggression of the House of Lords, in regard to the repeal of the duty on paper, by Sir S. M. Peto, and from the Society for the Repeal of the taxes on knowledge to the same effect, &c. THE REPEAL OF THE PAPER DUTY. Mr. GLADSTONE laid on the table a petition, signed by a large number of manufacturers in the north of Eng la.nd, representing property to the extent of £20,000,000, dot; ouncing the conduct of the House of Lords in rejecting the bill ,for the repeal of the duty on paper after its adoption by the House of Commons, as a dangerous and unconsti tutioaal act, dangerous to the privileges of the House of Commons, and tending to paralyse comme re, calculations in the mercantile world being made on the faith of acts in the House of Commons relating to taxation.. The right hon. gentleman also presented a petition from , the metropolis, signed by between 3,000 and 4,000 persons, of a similar character. , . Mr. E. JAI4.ES gave notice that at the end of the third vesolution he would move " and that this house is deter mined to assert snc•h privileges." BOMBALUDMENT OF NAPLES. Colonel STUART' asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether her Majesty's Government have taken, or are rrepared .to take, any steps in concert with the French Government, tc. prevent the bombardment of Naples by the King's troop{, in the event of General Gari baldi's suddenly occupying the t city as he did Palermo ? Lord J. RUSSELL—In answer to the hon. and gallant gentleman, I may say that, after tlte intelligence of the out rages which accompanied the bombardment of Palermo, the question was taken into consideration what her Majesty's Government could do in order to preye:it similar atrocities taking place at Messina and Naples. Bat with respect to the question put by the hon. and gallant m,'mber, there are two considerations which must guide the Government on the subject. The one is, that it would be a di:rect interfe rence with the civil and internal discord of another coun try. (Hear, hear.) And even supposing that objextion, on principle, to be got over, it would not only be difficult but impossible to give such precise and definite orders to the commanding officers of her Majesty's vessels of war Its to enable them to distinguish between that which would be the legitimate defence of the royal troops against the at tack of a mob or an insurrection and a wanton and atro cious destruction of the city and the lives of its inhabitants. Such being the case, we refrained altogether from giving any orders which would enable our naval commanders to act by force either at Naples or Messina ; but we did make strong remonstrances to the Government of the King of Naples against any renewal at Messina or Naples of the dreadful scenes which took place at Palermo. (Hear, hear.) I am happy to say, however, that the accounts I have re ceived from her Majesty's Minister at Naples lead me to think there is no prospect at present of such a bombardment taking place. lie informs me that he does net think it at all probable,and he hopes that no insurrection whatever will occur at Naples. The hon. and gallant gentleman is aware that great changes have taken place in the Government of Naples—(laughter)—that the constitution of 1848 is pro. ciainied, and an election is to take place for the representa tives of the assembly which will meet in September; and the Neapolitans will thus be enabled to decide what shall be their own future political conditijn. (Hear.) I may mention that the rumours which have from time to time been circulated respecting the conduct of her Majesty's forces and Ministers abroad have often been very erroneous. There was a report some time ago, the house will remember, that th e f or t of Castellamare h a d b een occu pi e d by th e Bri tlaiaalairal during the evacuation of Palermo by tho Nea politan troops. That report gave great uneasiness in some foreign q uail i B l and it was supposed that her Majesty's forces were about to take possession of Sicily. There is not theleast foundationatever for that report. (Hear.) There was another reportwhich occasioned some inquiry in another place, to the eff ec t that he rlaiesty's Minister at, Naples had taken a part 1* advising that the two v e ss e ls which had b e en captured by the Neapolitan cruis ers should be given up by the Neapolitan Government, Now I have a despatch from her Majesty's Minister a t Naples, in h e sa y s h e h as just heard of thereport, and t e hzi hertherre is n o t the smallest H f ou ndation for it, (Hear.) says that h e h a d no r ight to take such a course, and th at if h tion of exercising such right. H e also atidhsethhaadt tnhoeinNtena: politan Government had spontaneously given up t those ves sels, and that they were at liberty to return to MR. DUNCOMBE'S MOTION. el". Lord FERMOY suggested to the hon. member for Fins. bury (Mr. T. Duncornbe) not to pres s hi s motion, of which . he had given notice yesterday, as an amendment to the rlsolutions of the noble lord (Lord Palmerston), but to sub mit the same as an amendment—a course which Would have the approval of other hon. members like himself (Lord Fermoy). jto, T, puNcoMBE said that as he could not calm iate on the support a Liberia members, he would with draw his amendment, much to the dissatisfaction of the country at large. THE RESOLUTIONS. Lord PALMERSTON then rose, amidst loud cheers, to move the following resolutions : "1. That the right of granting aids and pplies to the Crcwn is in the Commons alone, as an essent'. 1 part of their Constitution, and the limitation of all 8.1 h grants, as to the matter, manner, measure, and time, i 4 nly in them." " 2. That although the Lords have exercised the power of rejecting bills of several 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. "3. That to guard for the future against an undue exercise of that power by the Lords, and to secure to the Commons their rightful control over taxation and supply, this house has in its own hands the power so to impose and remit taxes, and to frame Bills of Supply, that the right of the Commons as to the matter, manner, measure, and time, may be maintained inviolate." The noble lord said—Mr. Speaker, I rise upon an occasion which undoubtedly will rank as the first in importance among those which have taken place with regard to our par liamentary proceedings—(cheers)—because there can be nothing, I think, of greater importance to the country than questions which relate to the respective rights, privileges, and practices of the two Houses of Parliament. (Hear.) But, before I address myself to the subject, I wish to per form a duty—to call the attention of the house to that re port which has been presented to them by the committee whom they appointed to investigate and examine the jour nals and the authorities of both houses bearing upon the question, a document, I think, which contains a summary of parliamentary practice that will prove a lasting source of advantage to the house in regard to its proceedings ; and I should fail to express what I am sure was the opinion of that committee of which I have the honour to be a mem ber, if I did not state to the house how thankful they felt, how indebted they were to the right hon. gentleman who was chairman of the committee—(cheers)—and to the offi cers of this house who gave us their willing and assiduous assistance in the performance of our labours. (Hem., hear.) And I am satisfied that the house will respond to the com mittee by returning their sincere thanks and acknowledging their obligations, both to the right hon. gentleman the member for the University of Cambridge and to those offi cers of the house by whose assistance we were enabled to proceed with our inquiry. (Hear.) Sir, the question at issue involved considerations of the utmost constitutional import anee. Our constitution consists of authorities separate from and independent of each other, each possessing rights and powers which it may exercise on its own authority. In the early periods of our history it was not so. If we go back to very remote periods we shall find that the Lords—that is to say the barons—were powerful enough to overrule the Crown ; and by their exertions, by their courage, by their perseverance, and by their public spirit and their patriot ism, they obtained for us the great and fundamental charter of our liberties. (Hear.) There came then a conflict, which lasted for a great length of time, between the Crown and the barons. The Crown, in the end, prevailed, and established an arbitrary power, which ground down and controlled the liberties of the nation, and which at last became an intoler able burden. The excessive use of an excessive power created resistance. The nation rose against the power of the Crown, and in resisting the arbitrary and excessive au thority of the Crown it not only overthrew the Crown, but involved in its ruin the other estate of the kingdom. Well, sir, the humour of the country did not long adapt itself to that state of things. The power of the Crown was restored ; and again restored to be again abused ; and again the abuse of excessive authority produced its natural result. The Crown was overthrown—that is to say that those who exercised the power of the Crown were overthrown by the very excess in the amount of their power, and the un checked and uncontrolled nature of that power. Then came about that state of things under which this nation has ever since happily lived and flourished—(cheers)—and under which it has enjoyed a greater amount of civil, political. social, and religious liberty than perhaps ever fell to the lot of any nation of the world. (Cheers.) But how has that result been accomplished ? Not by vesting in any one of the three estates—the Crown, the Lords, and the Commons —an exclusive or overruling power. It has been brought about by maintaining for each its own separate and inde pendent authority, by those three :powers combining to gether to bear and forbear—to endeavour by harmonious concert to avoid those conflicts and clashings which must have arisen if independent authority had been exerted by each and all ; and the result has been what we now so hap pily and fortunately see around us. I say that each retains its power—that two possess the power of originating laws, and that the third possesses the power in common with the other of rejecting laws proposed for its acceptance. It is generally supposed that the power of rejection by the crown has ceased to exist, but that is a fUndamental error. That power exists as before, but it is exercised in a different manner. Instead of being exercised upon the measures proposed for the Royal assent, it is exercised by anticipa tion in the debates and the discussions of the two houses of Parliament. It is delegated to those who are the respon sible advisers of the Crown, and it is not possible that a measure passed by the two houses of parliament should be presented to the Crown and by the Crown should be re , jected and refused. And why ? Because it cannot be ima gined that a law should have received the consent of both L houses of parliament, in which the responsible ministers of 1 the Crown are sitting, debating, and voting, unless those who had advised the Crown had agreed to the measure, and were prepared, therefore, to counsel the Crown to assent to it. What would be the consequence if any other course were pursued ? Why, if the mea sure were passed by the two houses of parliament, against the will and opinions of the ministers of the day, these ministers must naturally resign their offices, and be replaced by those under whose advice Parliament had acted. If that were not the case, I think the two houses would very soon intimate to the Crown their opinion with regard to those advisers which would not leave any choice as to the hands in which the confidence of the Crown should be placed. I say then, that each branch of the legislature retains its power of rejection, but the Commons House of Parliament have claimed from time immemorial particular privileges with regard to particular bills. We have claimed, and justly claimed, as stated in these resolutions, the exclu sive right of determining matters connected with the taxa tion of the people. We have claimed to ourselves the right of originating such measures; we have denied to the Lords the right of originating such measures, and we have denied to them the right of altering or amending them ; and those assertions of right we have the power to enforce, because in every case bills so originating in the Lords, or so amended in the Lords, must come back to this house, and this house has then an opportunity either to confer with the Lords, and endeavour to persuade them to give up their decision, or to reject the bill. In either case, therefore, we have in our own hands a clear, plain, straight, and direct method of giving effect to the right which we claim, and which naturally belongs to us. But in those memorable confer ences which took place between the two Houses of Parlia ment in 1671, it was admitted by the Attorney-General, on behalf of the Commons—and for his conduct in those con ferences he was thanked by this h use, inasmuch as he had satisfactorily maintained its rights and privileges—it was admitted in those conferences on behalf of the Commons that the Lords, although they could not originate, and though they could not amend, had nevertheless the power to reject money bills. (Loud Opposition cheers.) An ad mission which was no great concession, because, as I have already stated, a bill rejected by the other house disappears; it does not come back to this house, and therefore, directly at least, and immediately, no action is possible on the part of this house, in regard to such bill; and conse quently, in admitting, as the House of Commons did at that time, and afterwards in 1678, that the Lords had the power of rejecting "in the whole—that was the expression —the house only admitted that which it would have been diffi cult to deny, and the denial of which, if made in a direct and positive mariner, it would have been impossible to rut in force. So matters stood at that time. Innumerable cases have arisen in which bills connected with the imposi tion of taxes on the people, having been amended by the Lords and returned to us, have either been immediately re jected —even in some cases, as is recorded, with marks of contumely, or conferences have taken place, by means of which the Lords have departed from their decision ; or, in cases in which the amendment of the Lords had been merely verbal, or unimportant, or calculated to further the intentions of this house, those amendments have been ado d, d w , h a n i c d h a w d o e p r e t e a c d c i n o r d o th in e g r l y bills pas sent b u y p t h t e o ni t h . e B H u c t u t s h e os o e f cases relate to bills imposing taxes. The present case is of a different nature. (Hear, hear.) It is the case of a bill for repealing a tax, and, therefore, when you admit the right of the Lords to reject bills—if that concession was not ac companied, as it was not, by any limitation as to the kind of bills to which the admission applied--I say, that when you concede to the Lerds the power of rejecting bills, you can only, in point of argument, establish a distinction between bills of a different kind ; but in fact, although we contend, and justly contend, for a right, which is interwoven with the constitutional history of this country—although we contend for the right of originating grants of supply, or of shaping them according to our belief of what is for the pub lie interest, yet, nevertheless, a bill so prepared, shaped, and framed by us cannot pass into law without the assent of the Lords ; and it is clear that an authority whose assent is necessary to give a proposal the force of law must, by the nature of things, be at liberty to dissent and refuse its sanction—(opposition cheers)—and to take from the Lords the power of dissenting from a bill to which their assent is necessary, would require an Act of Parlia ment, to which they must be parties, or else it would be a revolutionary subversion of the existing constitution of these realms. (Cheers.) But I say that, if we look to that large number of precedents in which the Lords have sent back with amendments bills sent to them from this house, and on which bills conferences took place in which alterations were made, we shall find, as I have already said, that in that long string of precedents here brought before us, al- i though they almost entirely relate to bills imposing taxes (and even in that precedent of 1671, in which conferences took place by which that mutual right was conceded, that conference having originated in the Lords trying to dimi nish a tax which was proposed to them), there did not arise a t h c e B r a 1. 7 ods similar hav to :r ru t e hat se wp t i o ch co h n a s s e r n e t cently oecurred, in which Well, then, I say that this great string of precedentso r f epealo t' a x i s. somewhat wide of the question which has occasioned this research. There are, however, precedents that bear directly on the point at issue, because between the year 1714 and the present day there have been about 36 cases of bills for re pealing duties or imposts of some kind or other, which, having been sent up to the Lords, have by them been re . _ _ jetted, or at least have not come down again to this house. So far as these precedents go, it will be contended that they _ _ are authorities upon which the House of Lords may think itself justified in the proceeding which it has recentlycarried into effect. But, nevertheless, if you look into those prece dents, you will find thet the bills which were so rejected by them were those bills involving taxes of very small amount, or taxes connected with questions of commercial protection, or of policy of some other kind, so that in fact it may be said that in those cases the rejection of the bills arose not so pith from the determination of the Lords to continue an impost on the country as an impost, but arose from their differing in opinion with the Commons as to some question of national policy, in regard to which those taxes or im posts were to continue or to be repealed. And this also may be said in regard to the amount of those taxes that none of them were at all to be compared in quantity or in amount with the revenue which was involved in this bill for the re peal of the duties on paper. But then, admitting, as I think we must do, that technically, in point of power, we have never questioned the right of the Lords to reject bills, yet the present case assumes somewhat of a different character, because we have maintained in words, and we have main tained by actions, that it rests with this house to frame the supplies of the year (cheers), to consider and determine with regard to the aids and supplies of the year what taxes shall be proposed, what taxes shall be remitted, what shall be the proportionbetween imposition and remission, and what shall be the nature of the arrangement ; and it is our privilege to combine the whole into one scheme, and when that scheme is so combined, it certainly is not consistent with the rights and functions of this house that any material portion of the scheme so framed should be rejected by the other house, so as to alter and entirely vary the bearing of the whole finan cial arrangement. (Cheers.) Well then, the question is, was that done by the House of Lords on the late occasion ? Why, sir, one must admit that in principle it was done. (Cheers.) It cannot be denied that the repeal of the paper duty did form an important element in that plan of finance which was sent up by this house to the Lords, and if everything had remained as it was whenthat plan of finance was framed the refusal of the Lords to pass that remission of duty, hav ing agreed to pass a bill adding to another duty, would have deranged that combination of finance which, on a balance of remission and imposition, had been thought by this house to be good for the interest of the country, for the supplies of the present year. (Cheers,) At the same time we have ad mitted that in those 36 cases of rejection to which I have alluded an element ofpolicy was allowed to enter into the de cision of the house upon those cases. It is of course not easy to affirm with certainty what were the grounds upon which the House of Lords may have acted in any one of those cases ; but looking at the manner in which, in those in stances, views of taxation waere combined with other kinds of policy, it is fair to assume that in those cases the rejec tion of the bill did not arise from a refusal of the Lords simply to relieve the people from a certain amount of bur then, but arose from the Lords believing that the arrange ments with which the repeal of that burthen was coupled were not for the public advantage, and therefore they re jected the repeal because they thought the public interest was not consulted by that with which it was connected. Well, then, sir, I will put the case as impartially as I can, in bringing my mind to the consideration of a question on which I think party feeling should be cast aside, and in which much higher and larger interests are concerned ; for the course the house shall now take will be a precedent to guide future Parliaments in time to come, and therefore one ought to place oneself in the situation of an impartial spec tator, and state fairly and honestly that which may be said on either side of the question. Now though I cannot allude here to anything that may have passed in the debate in the House of Lords—for it is not consistent with our orders to do so—yet, looking broadly at the matter, I do not believe that in ordinary circumstances, if this house had deter mined that a certain amount of taxation was fit to be re pealed, and had sent up a bill to the House of Lords for that purpose, the House of Lords would have rejected such a bill. I do not believe that if it had been shown that there was any excess of taxation which pressed heavily upon certain interests of the country, that that amount of revenue was unnecessary, or that a better application of that taxation might be made by transferring the burden to some other interest that would bear it better—l do not believe, judging from what has happened, we know, on some former occa sions, that the Lords would have taken the step which they , have taken. Why we know what an immanse amount of taxation has been repealed by the two houses of parliament since the end of the war in 1815. Upon no one occasion that I am aware of, in any of those instances, have the Lords dissented from the decision of the Commons to relieve the country from a burden which was thought to be unne cessary ; and therefore I cannot bring myself to believe that the Lords intended, by the step which they took upon this oc casion to enter upon a course which if they did intend to enter upon it, it would have become this house to resist by every means which is constitutionally and legally in their power— I do not believe the House of Lords intended to take the first step towards partnership with this house in arranging the budget of the year, the measure, the manner, and time of the grants, the aids and supplies, which it belongs wholly and exclusively to this house to tender. If any of us be lieved that such was their intention, and that it is only the first step to another course— (hear, hear, from below the gangway)—why then, I say it would become us to resolve in our minds to take those measures which we have in our power, and to meet that intention, to defeat and to frus trate it. But I say that until we have some more decided proof that such intentions are entertained, I should abjure this house—(cheers from the Opposition)—to content itself with that record or declaration which is contained in the resolutions I have the honour to lay on the table, and not, without being driven into it as a necessity, to enter into a formal conflict with that house. (Cheers from the Opposi tion.) Well, but had the Lords no encouragement from this house to take that stop ? (Cheers from the Opposition.) That bill passed on the second reading by a majority, I think, of 53. It was brought into this house under cir cumstances which are entirely altered—notoriously and publicly know.' to be altered—at the time when that rejec tion took place : but when this bill was proposed for the se cond reading, although opposed by many, it was neverthe less carried by a majority of 53. Well, sir, if on the third reading it had gone into the Lords with an equal majority or a large majority, I would net myself believe that the Lords would have done otherwise than pass it. But they saw—and these things, although they may not be known officially, yet are matters of public notoriety, and the re cords of our proceedings are laid cn their table—they saw that during the interval between our second and third reading, the opinion of this house appeared to have under gone a considerable alteration—(cheers from the Opposition) —that the majority of 53 was reduced to nine. (Cheers and laughter from the Opposition.) Were not the Lords entitled to think that the opinion of this house was not 50 strong as it had been? and so far as they were guided by public opini,,n, they might legitimately infer that which the hon. Secretary to the Treasury has confirmed by an estimate which he has laid on the table—(hear, hear, from the Opposition)—that events which it was hoped would not occur when the original arrangements were proposed, and which we bad a right to expect might not take place, had taken place, and would take place. And might they not think that it would be wise to give this house at least time for reconsideration, with a view to see whether that amount of revenue, which was justly thought to be unne cessary at the time when the arrangements were made, might not, by altered circumstances, the change of which was beyond our control, become a source of income which it would be desirable to keep for the year—(cheers) l —rather than to make up for it by transferring to other interests and other sources of industry that burthen which had been borne by the industry and interest of paper ? Well, stating, I think impartially—(cheers)—the case on both sides, while on the one hand I think this house would have a right to resent and to resist any at.empt on the part of the Lords to enter into partnership with us, with a view of guiding and determining the financial arrangements for the year— while I think they would be stepping out of their pro vince, and departing from that line of constitutional right which the history of the country has assigned them, yet on the other hand, if it can be believed (and I am led my self to think so), that they were actuated on this occasion not by any such intention, but by . motives of policy de pending on the circumstances of the moment, then I say I think it would not be wise of this house to enter into a conflict, upon a ground which might not really exist, but to satisfy themselves with a declaration of what is their own constitutional power and privilege, reserving to themselves the exercise of that puwer which they have, by their own means, if the occasion should arise, if that opinion which I have expressed should not be confirmed, and if the deliberate course should be pursued of changing the whole system of constitutional proceedings with regard to taxation, we will determine that if that should arise we would use those means which I am convinced are in existence, and which are sufficient to prevent any such in roads on the constitutional privilege of this house. Many may think the last resolution too vague—(a laugh)—that it does not point out the method by which we might enforce our privileges (or our constitutional rights I will say, and I will not say our privileges, for that i 3 a narrow expression), if they have-been invaded. There are many ways, which any man who knows the proceedings and powers of this house will at once have present to his mind, and in which, on such an occasion arising, we shall be able, first by per suasion, first by argument, and ultimately to the exercise of our own authority, to prevent such an encroachment on the constitutional functions of this house. And if such a course, such a mad course, were to be attempted as that, it is not by a violent resolution laid on the table of this house it is not by a scolding match with the Lords—(laughter) —it is not by impotent words laid on the table and voted by this house that our constitutional rights would have to be vindicated ; it would bo by action which we should not be slow to discover the mode of taking. I have not that opinion of the power of this house, and of public opinion, which would back it in such a case, to believe that we should be reduced to the condition in which the Commons of 1671 represented themselves to be when they said that their right to grant aids to.the Crown was " the only poor thing which they had" for the acceptance of the sovereign. The House of cQUIVIIQIIS is now in a very different THE SUN, LONDON, FRIDAY EVENING, JULY 6, 1860. position from that in which it was at other periods of our history. And if there be anything which may per haps be taken as settled in public opinion with re gard to the relative power of the different branches of the legislature, it is that the course of things, the spread of representation, the diffusion of knowledge, the power of the r eers, and the effect of public opinion has been that this house is daily increasing in its political power, in- stead of diminishing in that respect, and therefore : , so far from feeling any apprehension that the Lords would be able to usurp the legitimate functions of this house, I an I per fectly convinced that if this house pursues a steady, a dig- nificd, and a consistent course—if it abstains from any thing that may savour of opposition or aggression; if it stands upon its own, maintains its own rights, and affirms that it has and will exercise, if necessary, the means of making those rights respected—we need not have the slightest doubt or apprehension—and I think it would be disrespectful to the house to entertain any apprehension— that whenever our re , 1 functions should be deliberately in vaded, we should be unable to maintain them in the face of the country, and with the approval and sanction of the na tion. (Cheers.) I say then that these resolution, are fitted for the occasion at the present moment. I thint's they de clare what our constitutional rights and functions are— rights and functions which are interwoven, I may say, with the whole history of the country—which no man can deny, and which will not be denied, I will venture to ?say, by any single individual either in the Houses of Parliament or in any other part of the country—l think these resolutions sufficiently establish our right. They point out that, if that right should be invaded, we have in our own hands the ~ means of resisting that invasion. I think it would not have been becoming, on an occasion on which there was an ap pearance, at all events, of an intention to invade our func tions, it would not have been right or decent for this house to remain absolutely silent. That might have been con strued into a yielding a concession of the righ s and func tions which we ought to retain in our own hands. On the other hand, I think we should not have raised our selves in public estimation, and I do not think we should have done anything towards effectually maintaining our rights, if we had thrown into these reso lutions anything that might appear to be the commencement of hostilities with the other branch of the legislature. It is of the utmost importance that as in our constitution there are different branches, independent of each other, each with powers of its own, but the harmoni ous action of whose powers is necessary to the working of the constitution—it is most desirable not to commence an unnecessary quarrel. The party which does that would incur, I think, a grave responsibility. I will not believe that it was the intention of the House of Lords to do so. Some may think that I entertain too favour able a view as regards that. (Hear, hear, from below the gangway.) I state what I think about it, and I say that if we have not proof sufficient to satisfy us that this was the first step to wards a new course of constitutional conduct, we had better pursue the course which is now recomm ended to the adop tion of the house. I think that course is dignified—l think it will be effectual. lam convinced in my own mind that these resolutions going forth from this house will be a suf ficient warning to guard against any recurrence for the fu ture of that to which we most justly take objection. We are not prepared to undo that which has been done. If it were in ordinary times, under ordinary circumstances, we should have advised this house to pass again that bill which was rejected in the other house, to return it to them, and to have obstructed all other business till it was passed; to have exercised all those powers which we had in our own hands, and to have rendered it necessary,for the other House of Parliament to have passed that bill. But the circumstances of the moment do not make that course of action a convenient one. (A laugh.) That being so, I say that unless we had felt at liberty to have returned that bill in some shape or other, and to have insisted now, and in this session, on the repeal of that particular duty, it is more dignified of the house to Jake the course which it is my duty to propose. I would only, in conclusion, urge on the two Houses of Parliament that advice which a great authority on parliamentary matters (Mr. Hatsoll) has embodied in two pages of his work. After mention ing a series of transactions which he has quoted, he proceeds thus :—" I would say to the Lords, that from the history of all these transactions the conclusion to be drawn is that it should be the endeavour of both houses, and of every member of each house of Parliament, to take care in their proceedings not to transgress those boundaries which the constitution has wisely allotted to them, or to interfere in those matters which, by the rules and practice of Parlia ment in former ages, are not within their jurisdiction; for the rights and privileges of Parliament are interwoven with the earliest establishment of government in this coun try." Sir, I would recommend that passage to the conside ration of the Lords. (Cheers and laughter.) To the House of Commons I would venture to suggest another passage from the same author. He says—" The sole and exclusive right of beginning all aids and charges on the public, and not suffering any alteration to be made by the Lords is suf ficiently guarded by the practice of the house here ex pressed, and it does not seem to be either for their honour or advantage to push the matter further, and by asserting privileges which might be subject to doubt and discussion, thereby to weaken their claim to those clear and indubitable rights which are vested in them by the constitution, and have been confirmed to them by the constant and uniform practice of Parliament." To refuse to the House of Lords the abstract light of dissenting would bring us under the censure of that passage. Ido not believe the house would be disposed to follow up that course. I am inclined to think that this house values that harmony which is so essential between the two branches of the legislature for the manage ment of the affairs of the country. And if that must at all times be, as it ought to be, the ruling and guiding feeling of this house, I am sure that there is nothing in the pre sent aspect of affairs out of England, there is nothing in the general aspect of the affairs of Europe and the world, which would lead this house to think mole lightly than usual of holding up to foreign nations the lamentable and humiliating spectacle of a disunited legislature—of a divided people—of an internal contest—at a time when it is essential for the dignity, the honour, and interest of the country that we should exhibit to all the world an harmonious unity of action—a co-operation of all the estates of the realm for the common interest and welfare of the people. (Cheers.) Mr. COLLIER said that the first of the noble lord's re solutions was sufficiently explicit, but he could not compli ment the noble lord on the perspicuity of the two following resolutions. (Hear, and a laugh.) He was not sure if it was to be collected from them whether or not the Commons had a right to complain of the proceedings of the House of Lords, though, from the third resolution, he fancied they had, or otherwise he hardly knew on what principle it was declared that they were to take steps to prevent a recurrence of what had been done. (Hear.) He had given notice of an amendment, which would have remedied any ambiguity in these resolutions. His amendment was to the effect that the House of Lords by rejecting the Paper Duty Repeal Bill had committed a violation of constitutional usage. (Hear, hear.) Me used no hard words or strong expressions, but the House of Lords had either committed a breach of constitutional usage or it had not. If it had not, he did not know what occasion there was for a resolution at all—(hear, hear) —but if it had he did not see why the House of Commons should shrink from declaring so. It had been his intention to propose a resolution containing a definite expression of the opinion of the house, but as hon. members around him were in favour of a unanimous vote, and as he should be running c muter to their feelings by proposing his resolution, ho thought it would not be desirable that he should prevent that unanimous decision which was desired. Having been, however, a member of the select committee, he might, perhaps, be allowed to explain the views ho entertained. Not one word would fall from him in the slightest degree disrespectful to the House of Lords. All acquainted with history know that the country owed to the Lords no small portion of its liberties, and their privileges were as dear to them as were the privi leges of the Commons to the Commons. He did net mean to assort that the vote of the House of Lords on the Paper Duty Repeal Bill was illegal, but he maintained that it was opposed to constitutional usage, and that it was a breach of that tacit understanding which regu lated the functions of the two Houses of Parliament, and without the maintenance of which the constitution could not work. (Hear.) He might in one moment illustrate the difference between that which was legal and that which was constitutional. No one would dispute the legal right of the Crown to veto any number of bills, but, if the Crown vetoed every bill passed by the two houses, would any man say that such a course was constitutional ? On this point he would quote an authority respected by hon. gentlemen opposite. Lord Lyndhurst, upon the discussion respecting life peerages in the House of Lords, insisted as against the Crown that there might be a strict legal right, the exercise of which would be unconstitutional ; and the noble and learned lord concluded by stating that one of the principles of the constitution was long-continued usage. The same argument was used by another learned lord, who observed leges per desueludinunz abrogantur. In 1702 the House of Lords protested against the Commons annexing to a bill of supply a clause rendering the managers of Excise incapable of sitting in Parliament, and if the Lords could assert against the Commons the distinction between what was legal and what was constitutional, they could not complain that the distinction was asserted against themselves. Let him now pint out to the house the effect of the recent pro ceeding of the Lords. The House of Commons passed a budget, one of the main features of which was the repeal of the paper duty, and another was the increase of the income tax. There were several divisions in the house, and many persons voted for the increase of the income tax, on the dis tinct understanding that the paper duty was to be repealed. Now, the House of Lords accepted so ranch of the budget as increased the income tax, but refused so much as re pealed the paper duty, and he maintained that there was ao precedent for such a course. Let the house consider what would have been the effect if the Paper Duty Repeal Bill had been made to take effect at once. The duty would immediately have been taken off, and then the result of the Lords' decision would have been to reimpose it. (Hear.) The decision of the House of Lords had been defended on the ground that the House of Commons did not take sufficient care to provide supplies for the exigencies of the country, and that the House of Lords took a more com prehensive view of the circumstances of the country. (Hear, from the Opposition side.) lie could understand hon. gentlemen opposite taking that view; but the House of Lords by the course they pursued differed from the' Crown and the House of Commons, and undertook to sup ply a million and a quarter of money more than the two former thought necessary. (Hear, hear.) He could not assent to the doctrine hinted at by the noble lord, that the constitutional right of the Lords to deal with a Money Bill depended in any way on. the amount of the majority by which it had been passed in the Lower House. (Hear, hear.) Every one was familiar with the fact—but from its , very familiarity it was not sufficiently b orne i n m i n d— t h at I the Commons alone were addressed by the Sovereign on the question of supply, and were alone thanked for supplies at the end of the session. (hear, hear)—thought it would only be an act of proper courtesy this year if the Royal Speech, at the close of the session, thanked the Lords for the 4250,000 which they had added to the revenue. (Hear.) Money Bills, moreover, were always sent back to the Com mons, instead of being presented by the Lords to the Crown. Above all there was this fact, that for a great length of time the votes of the House of Commons with respect to matters of supply had all been treated as perfectly final and conclusive (Hear.) Blackstone laid this down most distinctly. "The results of this committee of ways and means," he wrote, "are in general esteemed final and conclusive, though the supply cannot be raised on the subject until directed by an act of the whole Parliament. (Hear, hear.) Yet no moneyed man would scruple to advance a large sum of money to the Government on the credit of a bare vote of the House of Commons." Blackstone, the most accurate of writers, would never have penned these words if the House of Lords had ever dealt with a budget as they had dealt with this. (Hear.) Lord Chatham, too, was equally explicit on this point. In speaking on the bill for taxing America, he said, " Taxation is no part of government or of the legislative power. It is the voluntary gift of the Commons alone. In legislation the three estates of the realm are alike concerned, but the concurrence of the Lords and the Crown to a tax is only necessary to clothe it with the force of law. The gift to the Crown is in the Commons alone." This was the faith in which we had been brought up, and, acting on this faith, the House of Commons had voted a large amount of taxes on a permanent footing instead of merely annually, in the belief and understanding that the House of Lords would never interfere to prevent the revocation of them. The House of Commons never would have voted the sugar duties or the malt duties as permanent revenues if they had under stood that the Lords could interpose to prevent their aboli tion at any time. (Hear, hear.) The very appointment of this Committee of Precedents was a proof that the act of the Lords had taken everybody by surprise. It was said by some people that the Lords had only done what they had been accustomed to do before, and the rejection of the Church-rates Abolition Bill was cited as an instance ; but, if that were an analogous case, why, when that bill was rejected, did not the noble viscount move for a committee of precedents? (Hear, hear.) The appointment of a committee of precedents, it must be re membered, was a grave proceeding, never adopted by the Commons except when their privileges were seriously me naced by the Crown or the Lords. The committee had not thought it necessary in their search for precedents to go further back than the year 1628. The most important pre cedents occurred after that year, and it was unquestiOnably most importantto ascertainwhat had been the practice since the Revolution, at which time the constitution might be said to have been finally settled. But it must be borne in mind that, though it was then settled, it was settled upon the old foundations. One of the oldest and most valued of those foundations was the exclusive right of the Lower House to tax thepeople. That right was as old as the house itself. The House of Commons seemed to have broken the egg full-fledged as far as its powers of taxation were con cerned ; they were coeval with it—it was called into exist ence as an instrument of taxation. In the 9th of Edward 11. there was an act entered on the rolls of Parliament, in which both houses concurred, to enable the King to raise troops ; but the grant of money was stated to be from the Commons alone. (Hear, hear.) In the three following reigns the Commons asserted again and again their exclu sive right to tax thepeople. During the reigns of the princes of the house of Tudor the rights of both houses were to a considerable extent in abeyance, both being overawed by the Crown; but neither Henry VIII. nor Elizabeth ever ventured to dispute the rights of the House of Commons in matters of taxation to the extent they were disputed after wards by James and Charles. In 1640 the same right which had existed for centuries was nobly asserted by Pym on be. half of the House of Commons. On that occasion the Loris sent a message to the Commons to the effect that it would be desirable to begin with supply before any other business VW entered upon ; and they prefaced their communication with the memorable admission, " on all these considera tions, although my lords would not meddle with matters of subsidy, which belongs properly and naturally to you— no, not so much as to give you advice therein—yet they have thought it right," &c. The House of Lords in the present day had done a good deal more than givt advice, they had differed from the House of Commons on a question of supply, and had rejected a bill in reference to it which the Commons had agreed to. (Cheers.) Mr. Pym, in his speech at the conference, declared that their lordships, in voting it to be just and necessary that matter of supply should have precedence of other business, had "not only meddled with matter of supply, but as far as in them lay had concluded both the matter and order of proceeding; which the House of Commons took to be a breach of privi lege." On all great occasions the House of Commons sub sequently asserted their rights by resolution; and ho would be able to show that the precedents which had now been collected were in no way applicable to the proceedings taken by the House of Lords. These precedents were divided into two classes, those in which the Lords had amended money bills, and those in which they had rejected them. If the question they were now considering had been the right to amend he should have felt under much ,greater difficulty, as the precedents in favour of that course were far more numerous than those in which bills had been rejected altogether. (Hear.) It was to be borne in mind that the Lords had never relinquished their right to amend money bills, but had strongly maintained their power of doing so. ' And, although it was said in debate that this claim was abandoned, such a concession could not bind them any more than an admission by the Attorney-General at a conference would be binding on the House of Commons. They had never denied that the House of Lords had power to deal with all questions save those of taxation; and to maintain that bills like those relating to church-rates or highways were beyond the province of the Upper House because in cidentally powers of taxation were conferred by them would be an encroachment on the functions of that assembly. But on looking over the cases which had been cited as precedents he did not find one in which a bill for repealing or altering a tax had been rejected purely on financial grounds. In five of the 34 instances questions of religion were involved ; six others related to subjects such as regulation of highways, the sale of game, and the relief of the poor ; 18 more were measures affecting trade or agricultural interests; and the Coasting Trade Bill and Works Bill, OM had been specially referred to, really turned on the question of pro tection or free trade. The preamble of the Stone Bottles Bill, on which the claim of the House of Lords was mainly founded, expressly stated that it was desirable to protect the glass manufacture of the country. The remaining cases cited as precedents could not be classified under the heads which he had already quoted. Two of them were bills pre venting Custom-house officers from levying gratuities on persons with whom their business brought them into con nexion, and Had nothing whatever to do with the taxation of the public. The next was the Tobacco and Snuff Bill, which contained 177 clauses with a great variety of regula tions applicable to the whole tobacco and - snuff trade, and that being so it formed no precedent at all, for no one in his senses could deny the right of the House of Lords to deal with it. (Hear, hear.) The Wine Merchants' Bonds Bill was one founded on a petition of some merchants who prayed to be relieved front paying interest on their bonds for duties they having already paid the principal. It was a frivolous case, so small, in fact, that you could not expect the House of Commons to notice it. De minintis non curat lex. It was not to be supposed that the Commons were always awake to such small attacks on their privileges. (Hear.) These were all the precedents where the Lords had postponed or rejected bills for repealing or altering duties or charges on the people. One or two of these bills had been dropped by the Government, others had been dropped on account of amendments made in committee or through the lateness of the session. (Hear.) With regard to bills of supply rejected by the Lords, some involved the question of protection, others were " tack" bills, comprising a hotchpotch of entirely different subjects, for which reason it was incumbent on the House of Lords, in conformity wfth one of their standing orders, to reject them. The Lottery Bill, from which Mr. Pitt in 1790 proposed to raise a revenue, was not thrown cut as part of the budget, but because of ono of the criminal provisions which it contained. When the Corn Law Bill of 1827 was abandoned by the Government in the House of Lords, owing to an amend ment made in committee, Mr. Canning said : " I presume the House of Commons is not so reduced as to abjure what its members have declared to be necessary principles, to rescind their deliberate resolutions, and to throw away as waste paper that bill whioh they have so much and so carefully considered, merely because in a cer tain assembly, which, for many reasons, is entitled to our respect, they did not happen to be entertained with that courtesy which might have been expected." And headdesi —" If there be a single spark of pride or of shame in the II ouse, they will not submit to it." (Cheers.) In 1853, Lord Ellenborough proposed to put off the Soap Duties Repeal Bill for one week, and Lord Aber deen then asserted the trite constitutional doctrine, — ,4 If (he said) the greatest calamity that could befall this country should be imminent, why, even then, he did not think it was the duty of the House of Lords to interfere and prevent the relief afforded to the people by the repeal of these duties. (Cheers.) If it should happen that the House of Commons should determine that this country shall be placed in a state of war, why the House of Commons would undoubtedly provide the means for carrying it out." (Cheers.) Lord Derby, on this occasion, used language differing very much from that which he had employed in 1860. He said the members of the Opposition were not dis posed to b r i ng th at house in collision with the Commons. His lordship therefore knew, in 1853, that the rejection of such a bill would bring the two houses into collision. (Hear, hear.) "His noble friend (continued Lord Derby) did not ask them to refuse their consent to the measure sent up to them by the House of Commons, but he asked them to be quite satisfied, before they passed it, that the circumstances were the same in whit h the House of Commons was placed when they thought it expedient and practicable to take oft this amount or taxation. . . . Would it not be prudent to keep that amount is hand, in order that the House of Cern- mons might have an opportunity of judging whether, under the new circumstances, they could afford to dispense with this tax? . . . It appeared to him that a short delay was the course dictated by prudence and sound sense." The upshot was, that the motion that the bill be postponed fur a week was negatived without a division. Ho had now gone through the various precedents which bore upon the question at issue, and the result of their examination ap- peered to him to be that there was no evidence - to show that the House of Lords had ever rejected a b 11 imposing or repealing a tax upon purely financial grounds, and proceed ing upon the notion that it was their duty to square the income and expenditure of the country. It behoved hon. members then well to weigh the consequences of the exer- cise of the new functions which the House of Lords had taken it upon themselves to discharge. The immediate re• suit of calmly acquiescing in its exercise must be that upon no future occasion could a tax be remitted by a vote of the House of Commons, and that it would be necessary for merchants, before making arrangements in conformity with a financial scheme to which the House of Commons had given its sanction, to ascertain, if possible, the views upon the subject by which the members of the other House of Parliament were animated. (Hear, hear.) The whole mercantile world would thus be thrown into confusion, and the utmost inconvenience would arise. (Hear, hear.) It seemed to him, he might add, most desirable that if the House of Lords were to be permitted to retain the power which they claimed they should be furnished with the esti mates—for which they had often applied, but which they never got, Mr, :eat having on one occasion complacently and firmly refused such an application—in order that they might be provided with information upon the financial sub jeets on which they would have to decide. It might, more over, be convenient that the Chancellor of the Exchequer should sit in the House of Lords, it being left to a Secre tary of State to explain the nature of the budget to the House of Commons. (A laugh.) He trusted, however, that the noble lord at the head of the Government was right in believing that the House of Lords did not mean to per severe in the course upon which they had so recently en tered. The decision at which they had arrived on the Paper Duty Bill had, in his opinion, done more to disturb the con stitutional functions of both branches of the Legislature than any proceeding which had taken place in our time, and the very fact, he should contend, that the House of Commons was obliged to take steps to prevent a repetition of that decision, and to alter their mode of procedure with that object, furnished in itself a conclusive argument that the vote of the House of Lords had in it something novel. (Hear.) The eyes of the country, he felt assured—not withstanding all that had been said about the apathy which prevailed upon the question out of doors—were upon the representatives of the people in the present discussion. During its progress it would be well to bear in mind the fact that those representatives had this very session vir fually rejected the Reform Bill, thereby refusing to assent to the extension of popular rights. (Hear, hear.) How far those to whom that extension had been promised by statesmen on both sides of the house would be satisfied with such a result he was not prepared to say, but if, in addition to the denial of popular rights the House of Com mons were abandon the rights which it passed, and to show itself a remiss and careless guardian of them, the probability would be that it would ultimately forfeit the confidence of the country, a forfeiture which would do more than any thing else to give an impulse to these democratic and dan gerous reforms the advent of which was dreaded by every man who valued the constitution under which we lived. (Hoar, hear.) The exclusive right of imposing taxes was the very lifeblood of the House of Commons, and should the time ever come when it should consent to abate one jot of that right, then from that hour might be said to date the decadence of the greatness of our system of Parlia mentary Government. (Cheers.) Mr. CONINGHAM said he very much doubted whether the country would receive the speech of the noble viscount in the same manner as it had been received by hon. gentle men on the opposite side of the house. He was convinced that the determination at which the Government had arrived to place a mere idle record upon the journals of the house must prove fatal to'it. He was satisfied that no Government could stand against the contempt which must be felt by the country when they saw the noble lord the member for Tiverton stand up in that house as the defender of the rights and privileges of the house of Lords instead of those of the House of Commons. (Laughter and ironical cheers.) Every word of palliation of the other house of Parliament that had fallen from the noble lord was a censure upon his colleague, the right hon. gentleman who sat by his side. It was not a financial but a great and grave constitutional question they had to consider. He had recently met his constituents upon this very question. (Laughter.) He con sidered his constituents quite as intelligent and capable of forming an opinion on this subject as any hon. gentleman who laughed so rudely. (Renewed laughter.) They might talk about the apathy of the country, but he was prepared to deny that the country was apathetic, and to tell the Go vernment and those gentlemen on the Opposition benches who were in favour of the course the Government proposed to pursue, that they were tampering with very dangerous elements when they ventured to bring the privileges of an irresponsible house into collision with the rights and pri vileges of a responsible body of representatives. (Hear.) He would toil them further, that the proceedings of that evening would give rise to such an agitation in the coun try as they had not seen for many years. (Laughter, cheers, and cries of " Oh, oh.") He thought that hon. gentlemen should conduct themselves in a manner becoming to mem . bers of a deliberative assembly. (Hear, hear.) It was not by rude and idle interruptions that ho was to be put down and silenced. (Laughter.) He was an independent mem ber of that house, and a real and genuine representative— (great laughter)—not of a rotten close borough—(in creased laughter)—but of a large and enlightened consti tuency. He was acting upon his right and privilege as a member of that house, and he would again tell hon. gen tlemen opposite who jeered at him, that he was not to be put down by such rude interruptions, which he did not deserve, for he never intruded on the time or attention of the house ; and when he did speak, he endeavoured to keep as closely as possible to the point—(hear)—and he ap pealed to all who heard him, whether he had not always conducted himself as became a member of Parliament and a gentleman. (Cheers.) He rose simply for the purpose of entering his deliberate protest against the decision of the Government upon this subject. He maintained that the house should again pass a measure for the repeal of the paper duty by such a commanding majority—(laughter)— as should compel the Peers to pass it also. Mr. V. SCULLY said that though he admired the speech of the hon. and learned member for Plymouth as an able exposition of constitutional law, he could not agree in the conclusions at which the hon. and learned gentleman had arrived with regard to the resolutions before the house, which he thought were all that could to desired at the pia sent moment. He did not regard those resolutions as final, but 'imply as an initiatory step in a bolder course. With respect to the proposed repeal of the duty on paper, it was' so difficult a quest ion that even he was not able to see his way through it, and he did not vote at all upon it, and left the house unable to make up his mind upon it. Should the house, however, bring the repeal of the paper duty on again, he should certainly vote for its repeal. (Hear.) Mr. LE ATHAM disapproved of the course taken by the Governmertt on this question, and upon other questions. He wished to know whether the hon. gentleman supposed that the debate on the Reform Bill was of a nature to raise this house in the estimation of the public. If hon. gentle men read the opinions of the public press, they would find that this house was held in utter contempt, and that that was also the opinion of their constituents and the public. A grave issue had been raised, and efforts were m‘de to effect a compromise upon it between the Cabinet and the House of Lords. If the House of Commons gave way, then they would lose the right to be regarded as faithful representa tives of the people. (Hear.) Reference had been made to precedents; but on this occasion a large remission of taxation which was proposed by that house was rejected by the other House of Parliament. By what precedents, he was at a loss to know, did the House of Lords take the course they had taken on this occasion ? By what right did they interfere ? It was proved that the House of Commons had hitherto ever shown itself ready to defend its own privileges, and he hoped the house would now be prepared to take its stand and assert its rights. (Hear, hear.) Mr. B. OSBORNE said that, with all submission to the Speaker and to the house in general, he could not help thinking that on the present occasion the house cut a very humiliating figure. (Hear, hear.) The noble lord who moved these-resolutions—and certainly they were not reso lutions which were " Sicklied o'er with the pale cast of thought," (cheers)—the noble lord made a speech which, - if it meant anything at all, was, in the shape of a defence of the House of Lords, nothing more than an attack upon his own Mini stry. (Cheers) The noble lord was followed by his hon. and learned friend the member for Plymouth, and he must say that to his mind, and he thought to the mind of the house generally, the speech of his hon. and learned friend did credit to him as a lawyer and honour to him as a states man. He had expected that some member on the other side, well fitted for the task, would at least have paid the house, if not his hon. and learned friend, the compliment to answer that lucid speech, which had exhausted every argument upon the question. (Hear.) He lamented to find that, after all the research which his hon. and learned friend had ex hibited, and all the painstaking labour which ho had evi dently given to the subject, the speech was not followed by any conclusion. (Hear, hear.) It appeared that his hon. friend's motion was withdrawn at a meeting of the great Liberal party. Of whom that great Liberal party consisted he was at a loss to conjecture. (Opposition c heers.)' But he thought that, however distasteful it might be to be beaten upon a division, the hon. gentleman was bound to have brought his arguments to a direct issue. (Hear, hea r .) The two parts of the question , the financial and constitu tional, But had been very much mixed up together. To the re peal of the paper duties he was from never gave a vote for any measure which he dee me d more rash, reckless,te the h and id notimproper.d regard (Opposition it in that light. (Hear) anyru se They repealed the paper duty. It was true th a t the 53 majority on the second reading had dwindled down to ni ne on the third reading, but that was no argument for the House of Lords. It was sufficient for the House of Lords that the paper duty was repealed by- a majority of the House of Commons, (H ear, hear.) Then came the constitutingl question, lie was averse to the repeal of the paper duty. He might think that, as far as common sense was concerned, the House of Lords had acted rightly ; but it was strictly unconstitu tional. (Hear, hear,) No one had attempted to answer the hon. and learned member for Plymouth, who had shown conclusively that all the precedents adduced in another plaes were just worth nothing at all. (Hear, hear.) He believed; that this house was living in a fool's paradise. (Cheers.) They were thinking that the people were paying no attention to these proceedings, and they talked of their apathy. There might be something in their apathy at the present moment; but he believed that apathy might be very nearly allied to contempt. (Cheers.) Did the course which they had taken, not on this occasion only, but upon another occasion—did their shuffling conduct with regard to raorm conduce to the credit and respectability of constitutional government. (Hear, hear.) They had the noble lord corning there and making, he agreed, a.tvery adroit, a very clever, arid a very satisfactory speech as far as both sides of the ht. 'use were concerned. It would be all very well if there wag n. l public out of doors watching their proceedings. (Hear, ile"-) What would the public say ? What were the resolutio. llB ? The noble lord talked of a dignified course. The resolutie‘ 18 might be dignified, but they were not grammatical. (Cheers andlaughter.) How could hon. gentlemen opposite, who sat; there in solemn silence, as if they were attending the funeral of the British constitution—(cheers)—how could they recon cile themselves on the score of dignity with the grammar of the third resolution? He would not insult the house by read ing it. Several hon. members had asked him what it meant. It was Meant to patch up some discord, and so eager and willing were the Government to patch up these differences, that they did not scruple to accept an ungrammatiCal resolu tion. (Cheers) But let the house remember that, however they might throw dust in each others' eyes, they could not throw dust in the eyes of the constituencies of the country. (Hear, hear.) He had no intention of mixing jiknself up in this debate until he heard the excellent sp e ech of . the hon. and learned member for Plymouth, but he should detm: him self unwor. hy of holding a place in the House of Comni,ena if he did not rise as soon as he was able to testify his thank.s to the hon. gentleman, who at least had shown himself ter be a worthy British member of Parliament, and given utterance to truly British sentiments in a way which re dounded to his own credit and to the honour of that house. (Cheers.) Mr. JAMES said he was not at all surprised that no member of the Opposition side had taken part in this dis cussion, because if he had advocated the same policy as they did—namely, to support the House of Lords in this— which, if it were their abstract right, he could not help believing was a great stretch of their prerogative—he too would have remained perfectly silent. He agreed with his hon. friend the member for Liskeard that the resolutions did not appear to be " sicklied o'er with the pale cast of thought," and he would follow up the quotation as most apposite— " And enterprises of groat pith and moment With this regard their currents turn awry And lose the name of action." (Cheers.) Beyond all question, a more lame and impotent conclusion could not have been derived from any resolu tions. (Hear, hear.) He ventured to think that as leader of the house, to whom the honour of the house was confided, the noble lord was the proper person to have come forward as the vindicator of these rights and privileges. Mr. Pitt did so, and on the last occasion, in the case of,Stockdale and Hansard, the noble lord the member for. .the city asserted the privileges of the house. But upon other grounds than as leader of the house and the person en trusted with their confidence was the noble lord bound to vindicate their privileges. The conduct of the House of Lords had paralyzed the whole or a great portion of the financial policy of her Majesty's Government. (Hear, hear.) These resolutions appeared to him to be a poor and paltry compromise of opinions in the Cabinet, and not dictated by a regard for the policy of the country. (Hear, hear) He concurred in the tribute of admiration which had been paid by the hon. member for Liskeard to the able speech of the hon. and learned member for Plymouth. (Hear, hear.) His hon. friend had exhausted the question of privilege, and he did not propose to trouble the honse with any re marks upon it. But, in withdrawing the amendment of which he had given notice, he wished to state that he did so in order to throw the whole responsibility on the Govern ment, who had assumed it, and who, in the most sorry manner, proposed to vindicate these privileges. (Hear.) This was no question of party politics ; it was no question of policy at all. It was not a question which side of the house was to occupy the Treasury bench; a more vital question, compared with which all questions of policy sank into insig nificance, was involved in the discussion of that evening. Our system of taxation had been, as every one acquainted with the constitutional history of the country knew, the battlefield of the liberties and privileges of the House of Commons. The most eloquent speakers and the ablest writers had struggled and had suffered for that cause; and when these events became history it would be a degradation to the Government of the day that they allowed impunity to that which, being a stretch of prerogative, had become a usurpation, and - satisfied themselves with a meagre and paltry resolution. (Hear, hear.) The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER—Sir, be fore you put the question I wish to take the liberty of ad dressing a few words to the house with reference in particu lar to an expression which has been used, and I must say not unnaturally used, by the hon. and learned gentleman who has just sat down. It appears to be the determination of one moiety of this house that there shall bo no debate upon the constitutional principles which are involved in this question ;:and I must say that considering that , gentle- Men opposite are upon this occasion the partisans of a gigantic innovation—(cheers)—the most gigantic and the most dangerous that has been attempted in our times—(re newed cheering)—l may compliment them upon the pru dence that they show in resolving to be its silent partisans. (Loud cheers.) I should like to know with what language and in what tones those who assume the name of Conserva tiveyoliticians would argue in support of a great encroach ment by one house of the Legislature upon the other. (Hear.) I agree with the hon. gentleman the member for Liskeard that there are two questions involved in this mat.: ter, the repeal of the paper duties—l am glad to see that there is some tendency to a movement on the other side— (cheers and laughter) [At this moment Sir J. Pakington, who, with Mr. Disraeli, had been for some time absent from the house, entered and took his usual seat upon the front Opposition bench]—the question of the repeal of the paper duties, and the constitutional question respecting the rights of the houses of Parliament. I join, I must confess, in the just compliments which have been paid to the teMperate argument made by the hon. and learned member for Ply mouth (hear, hear), and I frankly own that it appears to me that he does not deserve the censure bestowed upon him by a subsequent speaker for the withdrawal of his amendment, and that upon grounds which I will venture respectfully to state. The hon. and learned gentleman who has just sat down says that there has been a poor and paltry compromise in the Cabinet. Now, the question comes to be, in the first place, what is the language, what is thepurport of the reso lutions that are before the house P Well, in view of those re solutions as they stand, I am bound to say that I:cannot re fuse to them a cordial support (hear, hear), because they contain a most mild and temperate declaration, in entire conformity with the speech of my noble friend who moved them (some slight cries of " Oh, oh l")—they contain, at any rate, in themselves a most mild and temperate declara tion, but at the same time an intelligible and firm declara tion, as far as verbal expression goes, of the rights of the House of Commons. (Hear, hear.) It has been justly said that if the rights of the House of Commons are to be vindi cated, the question has to be considered whether they are to be vindicated by words or to be vindicated in action. (Hear, hear.) So far as vindication in words goes, that proposed by her Majesty's Government is, I think, a good and a sound vindication ; but in answer to the challenge of the hon. and learned member for Marylebone, a challenge which he has a perfect right to deliver, I do not scruple to say that, in my opinion, this house would do well to vindicate and establish its rights by action (loud cheers) ; and, without in the least degree imputing blame to, or finding fault with, the terms of the proposal of the Government, I reserve to myself en tire freedom to adopt any mode which may have the slightest hope of success for vindicating by action the rights of this house. (Renewed cheering.) Ido not think that at this mo ment the question of precedent requires to be further and I think with argued. In the presence of members of the committee who sit on the other side of the house, the hon. and learned mem ber for Plymouth has, with great conciseness, but at the about the same time with great clearness (hear), conclusive force, gone through the' list of those pretended precedents (hear), and has shown that there is not one of ch Lo r ds.t he r real ri g ht them that affords a ra g pri y o u r e a g s e h s r o e f d t o h( f eHli c ear o o v u e , ri he n sea g or f f. o ) P r the varo war don'tmeceen mare privileges goes far beyond the essential limit of your e s r Y ig l u t r s P . r Your vlege privilege coversi n name 20 aol erf tot proceeding huis s thebheou formalls o oe f s. t the drachs Hou se discussionsw o h f i thi a n r g e s s w hr i o th uded. re gard to whiCh you cannot establish a substantial claim. You would not until lately allow the House of Lords to in terfere with a fee; you would not allow them to interfere with a local rate; you would not allow to interfere with a penalty ; and absolutely of those supposed precedents which have been printed, and as beari ng on this constitutional question—of properly printed, perhaps, by the se d a sp r r e e c g t r e a d r e d n s t s t s h o e m i r e s r u e b l a s t a t e n t c o e nothingthose c omm i ttee , s u m o re i m t eas han itre pro s w hi h b i i c t h t d h o e import or export of some article; but because the vio lation of the law was attended, perhaps, with a penalty, perhaps with a forfeiture, they are paraded as questions affecting the privilege of the House of Commons. I am not finding fault with the course taken by the House of Com mons, which has found it expedient to assert its privilege largely, in order that it might stand rigidly upon that pre cedent whore substantial rights were involved. The House of Lords has pursued the same course, and I think with equal wisdom, for these privileges of the House of Commons are not admitted by the House of Lords. In the year 1610 the House of Lords did make a declaration which undoubt edly condoms as strongly as any member of this house could wish it to condemn the late act of the House of Lords in rejecting the Paper Duties Bill, because they did then state that they would not meddle, no, not so much as to advise, in the matter of supply, which belongs properly and natu rally to us. But at the time they made that declaration they did it because they had, in fact, another form of innovation in view. On that great occasion, in the first session of the short Parliament of the spring of 1846, they had an object