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

and if those resolutions should be carried, which he hoped they might be, it was not his intention to make any other proposal. (Cheers from the Opposition.) The motion for the adjournment was then agreed to. TAX BILLS.—ADJOURNED DEBATE. Mr. H. DI SEYMOUR resumed the adjourned debate. Ha had just heard the declaration of the noble lord that he was perfectly satisfied with the resolutions, and did not in tend to go further. The resolutions were good in them- selves; but his complaint was that they stopped far short of giving due effect to what ought to be their proper pur port. They laid down what was entirely abstract, and as serted what could not be contradicted. It would have been much better for the dignity of the house and the consistency of the noble lord if he had proceeded to draw the conse- quence that legitimately followed from his resolutions. If the sole right of controlling the supply rested in that house, and it was jealous of its ancient and undoubted functions— if the House of Lords had not frequently used that power and if an undue exercise of that power had now taken place, there sought to have been a plainer and more unequivocal declaration of that fact by the house. He hoped that the noble lord would amend the third resolution before it was put, or that the house would sipport him (Mr. Seymour) in the amendment, of which he had given notice -46 That the rejection by the Lords of the bill for re pealing the paper duty is a violation of the constitutional rights of the Commons." The noble lord had declared in his speech that it certainly was not consistent with the _ _ rights and functions of that house that any material por tion of the general scheme of finance should be rejected by the other house ; and he admitted that the Lords in prin ciple had done this—in other words, that they had inter fered with the undoubted and ancient privilege of that house. If he was in earnest in making these observations why should he stop short ? Why not prove to the coun try his sincerity by putting i n a d ec l ara ti on th a t th e House of Lords had violated and - encroached upon the privileges of that house ? (Hear, hear.) He was still more astonished at the noble lord's justification of and apology for the House of Lords. He not only apologised for them, but grounded his apology on the supposition that the Lords had taken into their wiser heads that that house had been acting pre cipitately, and that they, the Lords, were entitled to review and amend the budget. (Hear, hear.) Upon whom did the Queen call for supplies ? To whom did she offer the estimates ? She called upon her faithful Commons, and she told them the proper estimates for the service of the year should be laid before them. If the noble lord were right that form must be altered, and her Majesty must ask the Lords and Commons for supply, and direct the estimates to be laid before both houses. He protested against the Lords setting themselves up as a court of appeal f rom th e com . _ _ mittee of supply of that house. It had been made a question of party struggle in the other house ; and they had not hesi tated to single out the Finance Minister, and attack his arrangements for the year. Was it a simple negative to enter into an angry debate on the merits of the budget ? The apo logy of the noble lord was misplaced and mistimed, and put the position of the Lords in a more unconstitutional light before the country. To refer to the number by which the third reading of the Paper Duty Repeal Bill had been carried was a most unfortunate argument. (Hear, hear.) It was opposed to every constitutional precedent, and to every sound reason that could be addressed to the house. Did it not occur to the noble lord to inciaire what number was ne cessary to place a Ministry in power ? It took a majority of 13 to place the noble lord's Government in office. (Cheers.) And was it to be said that the majority of nine on the Paper Bill was too insignificant to be noticed by the Lords ? He trusted that the amendment which he had submitted would receive the sanction of the house. It was most essential that that house should not be degraded in the estimation of foreign powers. It was far more important that the dignity of the house should be maintained in the eyes of nations than that they should suffer it to sink from any affected wish to cultivate harmonious relations with the other house. (Hear.) He had long admired the talents of the Chancel lor of the Exchequer, and respected him as an able and elo quent orator and a great financial Minister, but last night he had assumed the character of an indignant, honest, and fearless patriot. (Cheers.) His speech would have an effect from one end of the country to the other. It might be that some results would happen of a political character; it might bo that the Minister who had consulted rather the interests of his country than the convenience of his colleagues would be called upon to suffer for it. (Hear.) But though he might lose a seat in the Cabinet he would be rewarded by a throne in the affections of his countrymen. (Hear.) He hoped that the right hon. gentleman would either bring in another bill, and pass it at once through all its stages, or that he would ask the house to support him in giving in structions for the tax not to be collected after August. Though the noble lord had told them the resolutions were to remain a dead letter, en the other hand they had the promise of his colleague. One was pledged to action : the other to inaction. Considering that the eyes of numbers out of doors were turned towards the Chancellor of the Ex chequer, he trusted that he would be true to his character and to the pledge he had given last night. (Hear.) The paper duty had been repeatedly doomed by that house ; and now, a tax which that house had declared unfit for con tinuance would, from the 16th August next, be imposed by the authority of the House of Lords alone. (Hear.) That was a position which no precedent supported, and of which no example could be cited in bygone years. He had examined the whole of the precedents and found that they crumbled into dust and ashes. (Hear.) The committee had shown great diligence ; but many of the cases cited by them were not only not precedents, but were so far from that as to give an air of ridicule to the comparison. One of these was the Tobacco Trade Bill ; another was the Pawnbrokers Re gulation Bill; another related to the duties on raw silks and velvets; but each of these bills involved other subjects of legislation. Then there was the bill for a reward to Dr. Smith. (A laugh.) Who Dr. Smith was he had no idea. Next was Phillips's Powder Bill. (Laughter.) The object of that bill he had supposed might be to provide medicine for her Majesty's forces. (Laughter.) The hon. gentleman went through the other precedents referred to in the report of the committee, and contended that there was not one of them which could be said to jastify the conduct of the House of Lords in rejecting the Paper Duty Repeal Bill. The com mittee drew the line of precedent at the year 1628 ; but he believed the lights of the House of Commons were older than 1628. He might go back not merely to the times of the Stuarts and Tudors, but to the earliest chapters of the Eng lish constitution, and there he found distinct and explicit avowals of the right of the House of Commons to control and regulate the supply and taxes of the country. He found it recorded in the rolls of Parliament for 1315 that supplies were granted by the Commons only, without any reference to the House of Lords. (Hear, hear.) In 1404, the 6th of Henry IV., he found it recorded that the Commons granted a subsidy of hides, wool, and wool fells, to which they an nexed this condition, that the King's treasurers were to account for the expenditure of the supply, not to the Lords and Commons, but to the Commons alone, in the next Par liament. In 1407, the 9th of Henry iti., he found another precedent of a similar kind. So far back as the year 1407, the Lords having pressed the Commons to grant the King a subsidy, it was recorded that the Commons were greatly disturbed at the degradation which was sought to be put on them. But there were many other precedents of a similar kind accorded on the rolls of Parliament. In 1640 a similar one was cited by Clarendon, in which the Commons, after conference with the Lords, recorded a de claration to the effect that all supplies should originate with themselves. They declared that any attempt to originate them elsewhere was a high breach of their privileges, and they declined to proceed farther until they received satis faction and reparation from the House of Peers. How were they to ask reparation now ? A large sum had been added to the supplies to the Crown, but that house had not granted it. It was granted by the House of Lords, which had esta blished from henceforth a new method of granting the sup plies. But he had a precedent so late as the year 1835, when in the case of the Municipal Corporation Reform Bill the House of Commons refused to permit any interference even with a case of grand juries. He asked the house, then, not to be content with these resolutions, nor consent to be drawn into what must obviously become a precedent. He did Rot speak in any revolutionary spirit, nor did he wish to see any diminution of the just privileges of the House of Lords, but he wished to see preserved intact all the just and constitutional privileges of the House of Commons. The hon, and learned member having sat down, rose again and said he should move the amendment of which he had given notice as a distinct resolution. (Hear, hear.) Mr. lIORSMAN said he agreed with the hon. and learned gentleman who had just resumed his seat, and with all those hon. members who had preceded him, as to the importance and magnitude of this question. But its im portance and magnitude did not present themselves to his mind for the first time on this occasion, for he had in an earlier part of the session singled out the repeal of the Paper duties, and had humbly warned the house, not in the language of the right hon. gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer, that it was a gigantic and dangerous inno ntin; but this wag the most important fi na n c i a l p ropos iti on which had been submitted to Parliament in their day— (hear, hear. f _ i. from the Opposition)—whether as t concerned the Trine lPles involved or the questions to which it would inevitably lead. house cil ,1 1: and When the qu es ti on was aga i n b rought before th e ventured to employ the same lan guage as to the p had noticed the progress consequences of this measure. He country and the Changes whichwhich opinions had made in the had taken place, and parti cularly that it had b ecome l popular in the country, and that it had at last become the.:ubject of embarrassment to mortifyin g to the ministers, of the members of the cabinet, and a matter of disescriooratifiate.tiuureesitnr the other house of Privilege be parliament, and raising twee the two houses. (llear.) lie had listened with very grea t satisfaction to the speech of the nobles assurance, at the head of ti Government, because he o f for a committee to look r ave opreeed ente, tehea' when he that step he did not intend to provoke a collision nibe.tween the two houses. But what the noble lord had i n n asking the house to come to itspresent decision did not seem to present itself to the mind of the Chancellor of the Eseh m e ., titter. The noble lord wishe d to mak e t he independenc e of the Lords a reality, but the Chancellor of the Exchequer seemed to desire that it should be merely a sham. (Hear.) The noble lord would place the Lords in equal authority with the House of Commons, while the right hon. gentle man would say that was the house which ought to have abooluto power in casee of this sort. The Chancellor of the Exchequer had raised a question as to which he *mild at tempt to give an answer. The right hon. gentleman said it was the policy of the constitution of the country that all the financial plans for the year should not be reviewed by the Lords. Now, if the budget of the Minister was a matter between Downing-street and the House of Commons the ' interference of the Lords might be consider( d a trouble some intrusion; but if the question were in reality one be tween the House of Commons and the c ntry, it ought not to be decided by the House of Commons alone, but the House of Lords then should exercise that right which the constitution had vested in them. (Hear, hear.) Was it not the first law of the constitution that there was no power in this country without being subject to control ? But where would be the check upon the House of Commons re- cently elected and that had five years to live? It might in matters of finance run riot and ruin the country before a dissolution could take place. Therefore it was that the Lords had a power to review and to check the financiel po licy of the Commons. (Hear.) But it was, he must admit, a power which should only be exercised upon rare and spe cial occasions. He would not go into the precedents, because any hon. member might quote reasons for either view, but he would simply refer to the reasons given by the Lords in the remarkable controversy which the committee had thought it right to set forth at length in their report. The Lords then passed certain resolutions that it was their un- doubted right to review the bills sent up to them, and they said that the writs issued at the commencement of a Par- liament called them together to give counsel upon all ques tions which might arise, without any exception. (Hear.) Thus the Lords asserted their constitutional claim, and whenever such right came into collision with the Commons the result must be an appeal to the nation, and if they were in the right they would override the decision of the Lords; but if they should be essentially in the wrong the Lords might correct the proceedings of the Commons. (Hear, hear.) The real authority, however, rested in the nation, which was the court of ultimate appeal. (Hear, hear.) It was said most truly by the Chancellor of the Exchequer that this was not the mere rejection of a money bill. It was admitted that the budget was the reversal of a policy which had long prevailed, and it was in that character that he had viewed it, and as such the house had condemned it. It was a scheme of innovation of financial policy, and it was remark able for two reasons ; first it contained a remission of taxes when there was a deficiency in the Exchequer ; and secondly there was substituted direct for indirect taxation, upon a principle capable of an indefinite extension, and that was in reality what the House of Lords had checked and controlled when they rejected the Paper Duties Bill, the passing of which they believed to be opposed to the national sentiment as it was opposed to the national interests. (Hear, hear.) The question which had lately arisen had been noticed by Hallam in his " Constitutional History," and he clearly showed that the House of Lords had during the last century rejected bills, and that both houses exercised their alleged privileges when occasion arose, while at other times their claims were placed in abeyance, and by the common con sent on all occasions matters had been compromised, there having been no extreme assertion on either side. The prece• dents referred to were unimportant, and for this reason, be• cause they could not be analogous to this case, nor applica. ble to the time in which they lived. The precedents to be found were not the growth of laws, but of time and the production of accident, and therefore a precedent applica ble at one time could not apply to another. For instance, the precedent of 1678 was framed at a time when there were no responsible ministers—when there was no Go vernment as it now existed—when there were no annual budgets, and when there was no complete statement of income and expenditure of the country. Consequently, there was no elaborate review of the principles which the Chancellor of the Exchequer might thick fit to adopt. Again, the revenue was voted for the natural life of the so vereign, and the control of the Commons over the affairs of the country was extremely limited; and, further, the power of the house was small. It was, then, no wonder that the Commons should be tenacious in their power over money bills; for if money bills could have been originated in or modified by the Lords, the Commons would have lost their power entirely over the supplies of the country. He therefore believed that the opposition of the Commons in past times had not so much been directed against the Lords as against the Crown—(hear)—because the Crown endeavoured to act upon the Commons through the Lords, the facilities for doing so teing greater in that matter than directly upon the Commons. If they went to the other branch of the Legislature they would find sti'l greater charges in the relations of the Lords to the Crown and the Commons. He was surprised to hear the hon. and learned member for Plymouth (Mr. Collier) say that the revolution of 1688 made no change in the Parliamentary government of the country. He had always understood that that event made a great change in Parliamentary Go vernment. It was the revolution of 1688 which placed the Government of England in the hands of great families, and from that period to 1832 the power of the peerage was im mense. Then peers made and unmade Goverrments by their influence at court and their wealth, being relatively so much greater before the extension of commerce, by their close eonnexion with the landed gentry, and by their abso lute sway in many boroughs; they threw down Cabinets with a Dower far greater than that either of the Commons. Therefore there was no necessity for ex • citing a jealousy between the two Houses of Parliament by the discussion of finance and money bills. The financial arrangements of the country at that time developed themselves in the House of Commons, and the House of Lords by their indirect influence accomplished all they wished with regard to finance. No financial burdens were imposed upon them as peers. As landlords they had a close alliance and sympathy with the landed interest in the House of Commons, and their feeling and interest as peers, on matters of taxation and finance, were identical with those of the dominant party in the House of Commons. But the act of 1832, which was the constitution under which they now lived, and which had strangely been overlooked and fergotten by the assertors of privilege on this occasion, changed all that. It made a great transfer in the powers of the State to the middle classes and the constituencies that elected the House of Commons. The Lords no longer di rectly or indirectly ruled the Commons; the landed inte rest was no longer dominant in the Commons. The com mercial interest obtained their due share of power, and in the present session they had seen that they had obtained something more. (Laughter.) The effect of the act of 1832 on the Lords was fully as great as upon the Commons. The Commons became a truer representation of the nation be cause they ceased to be a representation of the Lords. In proportion as the Commons were strengthened the Lords were weakened ; but in the same degree in which the act of 1832 deprived the peers of the powers which they had usurped it became only more necessary to secure and strengthen that legitimate authority which the constitution had intended they should possess. Losing their territorial ascendancy, they were thrown back on those functional ser vices which became the condition of their existence. They were established as the second council of the nation, in order to provide for the nation that security which all con stitutional governments sought for in the existence of a second chamber, viz., as a safeguard against the despo tism of democracy. (Opposition cheers.) But gentlemen around him forgot those changes—forgot that the Cora mons, instead of being the weakest, was now the strongest power in the state, and instead of defending its own rights, threatened to override and absorb all other rights, and to assume the whole government of the country. The Chan cellor of the Exchequer, in his speech, last night, spoke in the spirit, if not in the language, of those who looked upon the House of Lords as something of an anomaly, to be tole rated only so long as they aro conscious of their inferiority, so long as they consented to register the edicts of the Com mons, and to receive from the assertors of privilege that certificate of good behaviour which graciously prolonged to them an existence on sufferance. The resolutions of the noble lord were of greater importance from their dubious character, as they suggested an inquiry which could not long be delayed as to the real character of the constitution, and the powers and functions of the other House. The House of Lords had no exclusive privileges whatever that he was aware of. The members of that house were country gentlemen, owing their influence in their respective dis tricts to precisely the same cause as other country gentle • men, not to the titles they bore, but to the property they possessed. In their collective capacity, as a legislative body, they were a national institution created by opinion, and existing by opinion, and exercising no power exclu sively for themselves. Their power they exercised not in their own name, nor by their own authority, but in the name and by the authority of the people of the country, of whom they are a part, just as much as they (the House of Commons) were a part, and whom they represented consti tutionally just as much as they did. The right hon. gen tleman having <luau' the opinion of Burke in support of that view, went on to observe that the peers of England, as contrasted with the peerage of any other country, which was easily swept away by the first storm, had this particular element of strength, that they were a body of landowners, deriving their wealth from agriculture, which was the greatest trade in the country. They were identified intimately with the progress and improvement of the people. They were eminently distinguished by their habits of busi ness, by their knowledge of agriculture, by the management and the improvement of their estates, and by an acquantance with farmer and labourers, by their general knowledge, in terests, and feelings, and it was impossible to overrate the deep and enduring sympathy which those qualities had won for them from the people at large. The Lords discharged functions absolutely essential to parliamentary government. It was a mistake to suppose that because they were not elective they were therefore not a representative body. If there was no House of Peers in the country, it would be necessary to create one. They exercised their power in the name of the people, by the authority of the people, and even as part of the people. (Hear.) That was not only a fiction; in these days it was absolutely essential that it should also be acknowledged to be the practice of the constitution, be cause if it were not, the peerage was a fiction and could not he maintained. The House of Peers had of late years ne anceaxed to originate g re a t public measures, especially when they involved a n y p o li c y o f St a te as well as financia' bills, g d ov th en e : :: House ; use of Commons now virtually directed the Government of England. The Crown and the Lords no i they moderated and regulated but they did or not supply the movements of the state ; and it was this moderating influence which alone secured England from the desp o ti sm of an uncontrolled 01l ed popular assembly. (Cheers.) B u t as their influence could no longer be '• ~~ : THE SUN, LONDON, SATURDAY EVENING, JULY 7, 1860.- was about unanimously to make should be reversed, because that would have been in accordance with the speech of the right hon. gentleman, and *ith the sentiments which many hon. members opposite had most vociierotisiY cheered. There were fifty gentlemen on the other side of the house, who were, in the early stages of the budget, more enthu siastic supporters of it than a great many members on that side of the house, and he (Mr. Bright) did not know what those fifty members thought of the remarks of the right hon. gentleman upon what he called the headlong, precipi tate, and reckless budget of the Chancellor of the Exche quer. Now, he would not attempt to follow the right hon. gentleman, either to support or to controvert his theories of the extreme value of the House of Lords as a part of the constitution of this country, for that was not the question before the house ; but he would endeavour to state the grounds on which he (Mr. Bright) was not very well satisfied with the course the house was invited to take. Ho would not attack the resolutions of the noble lord, nor would he defend them ; he was not responsible for them. They appeared to him not worthy of the occasion. (Hear.) Ho thought they bore marks of having been composed by more than one hand, and if they expressed all the house had to say on this occasion, he thought posterity would say they were the resolutions of a degenerate House of Commons, (Hear.) The first one was a very good resolution, but it was very old. (A laugh.) It was net the worse for that, and he was glad the noble viscornt bad not thought it ne cessary to try and improve it. The other two resolutions were somewhat ambiguous and feeble. Theywerenot, either in their expression of what he believed to be constitutional usage, or as examples English composition, to be com pared with the first end oldest. Last night, after long silence, two speeches 'sere made from the other side of the house—speeches which he heard with some surprise and some pain. Tkey appeared to him marked by great reck lessness and great levity. Whatever might be the opinion of members with regard to the question before the house, it was not one to be treated in that manner. It was a serious question whether the powers of this house had been in fringed or not, and whether another house should hereafter exercise powers which it had not hitherto exercised ; and we might learn from hist:2.y that there was no greater sign of the decadence of a potpie than to find leaders of party and eminent statesmen treating great questions as if they were not great, and solemn realities as if they were no realities at all. He thought he could observe in those speeches rather the triumph a men who fanoictl that where they had expected an opponent in the Prime Minister they had got an advocate, and who were delighted that, acting with their confederates in the other house of Parliament, they were likely to obtain a signal party advantage. But would anybody deny that the House of Lords had violated, he would not say the privileges of the House of Commons, but broken in upon an usage many centuries old, which the predecessors of the present House of Commons believed to be of the utmost importance to the powers of the House of Commons, and to the liberties which they represented ? If there had been nothing wrong, why have a committee? The right hon. member for Buckinghamshire now, three weeks after the committee had been appointed, said it would have been much better if there had not been any committee, but he did not oppose it at the time; and every member of the house thought it was but reasonable when the noble lord proposed that committee. But why should they ransack the journals and search for precedents unless something had happened which jarred upon every man's sense with regard to the rights of that house and the common usage of the House of Lords ? And why, after that research, should they now have these resolutions, moved not by a young and in experienced member, but by the noble lord, one of the oldest members of the house, one of the most eminent statesmen in the country, and the chief minister of the Crown ? Every body must admit that the circumstances were such as to justify this course, and the hon. gentlemen opposite, not withstanding their spasmodic cheering, must see that these resolutions themselves were a proof of the general opinion that the course the Lords had taken was unusual, if not absolutely wrong. For those resolutions did, by implica tion, condemn what the Lords had done; although they did not revoke the act, or pledge the Commons to any course with regard to it; but they expressed an unanimous opinion that it was contrary to usage, and calculated to excite jealousy and alarm. Now he (Mr. Bright) was one of the committee, but he must confess ho thought the com mittee had fallen wonderfully below its duty. The course it had pursued was poor and spiritless ; and when contrasted with that pursued by other committees in former times, it would show a really melancholy declension. The committee appeared—at least half of them—to be quite as much ad vocates of the Lords as of the Commons. He found that some members of that house were very much of the seine character. Their speeches were speeches which very few members ;of the House of Lords would make upon this question, and very few members of the House of Lords would dare to make such a speech as had been made by the ' right hon. gentleman the member for Stroud. (Loud cheers.) He (Mr. Bright) went into the committee, and he would tell the house with the utmost frankness that his object was not altogether that he might ascertain what the Lords had asserted with regard to their privileges, but what their pre decessors in the House of Commons had asserted with re gard to theirs. They had no right to let go one single arti ro,vor wh;01-1 thn douse of Com mons had gained in past times—(hear, hear)—and he took it for granted that if he pursued for some centuries back the course they hal taken and observed the result of the discus sions between the two houses, read their resolutions, ob served acts which they had passed, he should be right if he concluded that it was their duty to maintain that which their predecessors had contended for. (Hear.) The hon. member for Southampton (Mr. D. Seymour), following the example of some other hon. members, and following that of the report of the committee, had taken the house back for a lengthened period of time. He (Mr. Bright) should not go into any of those precedents to explain whether they did or did not refer to this particular case, but he should ask the house to permit him to read two or three paragraphs stating the facts which he took from the journals of the house, and which convinced him that they (the Commons) were not taking a sufficiently bold and decided course in agreeing merely to the resolution which the noble lord at the head of the Government had proposed. (Cheers.) Now that very course which the right hon. gentleman the member for the University of Cambridge (Mr. Walpole), as chairman of the committee, together with myself, fixed upon as somewhat of a starting point in this great controversy was the tcase of the year 1407. He should not go into it, for he trusted every mem ber of the house had read it either in the translation or in the old Norman preamble. (A. laugh.) Both, he assured the house, were worth reading, but that was a curious case, and he believed from 1407 down to this time there had been no other case so like the present case as that of that year -453 years ago. In that year the !Lords proposed to con tinue a tax to which the House of Commons had not as sented, and it was out of that occurrence the whole of that transaction sprung; and they knew from the record that the Commons were greatly disturbed at the fact that the Lords had proposed to prolong a tax to which the Commons had not given their assent. (Hear, hear.) From that year they took a great leap, from 1407 down to 1628, and on that occasioi they found the Commons insisting merely upon the initiation of bills of supply. They would not permit the Lords either to put the name of the Lords either in the'pre amble, nor would they allow that compromise which the Lords proposed, namely, that neither Lords nor ConTmons should bo mentioned in it, but that the High Court of Par liament should be mentioned. They refused both, and that had been the practice up to the present hour. In 1640, the Lords were much more modest than the right hen, gentle man (Mr. Horsman) said they ought to be. (A laugh.) He said they ought to check, they ought to control, they ought to review, they ought to alter, and that, in fact, they ought fundamentally, if it be necessary, to overthrow all the fin ancial arrangements of the year which the House of Com mons may have agreed to. But in 1640 the Lords declared that they would not meddle with matters of supply, which belonged properly and ,naturally to the Commons.- Lid the Lords in 16 10 know nothing of their constitutional rights ? Mr. Pym told them they had meddled both with the matter of supply and the mode of it, and that he was commanded ;by the Commons to ask reparation from their lordships. And their lordships gave the Commons reparation, and said they did not know they were breaking in upon the means of raising supply, but were merely recommending to the King that supply should have precedence over questions of grievance. He was not sure that the Lords ever admitted by resolution that it had not the power to reject bills of supply. They knew they had not the power to carry that, because in this house it would fall dead at once unless that unhappy time should come which the right hon. gentleman the member for Stroud wished to see realised. (Hear.) When the Commons main tained the right of money votes then came the question of management. In 16;r1 they proposed that the duty then leviable on white sugar should be reduced from lid. per lb. to iths of a penny pea lb., and the Commons then came to that resolution which had been already read to the house, " That in all aid given to the Xing by the Commons the rate or tax ought not to be altered by the Lords,' and the Commons then declared that acre was a fundamental right in the house, both as to the matter and the manner, and the time. What followed in the House of Lords ? The Lords replied to the Commons by a similar resolution, a resolution passed in their favour, that i; was a fundamental right of the Lords to do all those things which the right hon. gentleman the member for Stroud had said they ought now to be permitted to do, and that resolution in their favour was just as strong, and in the very same words, as the resolution which had been passed in a contrary sense by the House of Commons. The right hon. gentleman the member for the University of Dublin (Mr. Whiteside) made an unhappy allusion last night when he turned the attention of the house to the con dition of the United States. In that ho proved himself to be, not perhaps understanding what he was saying—(laugh ter)—strongly in favour of Americanising, the institutions of this country. Ho asserted that the Senate had the power not only of rejecting but amending bills, which was quite true. When the fathers of the American republic were binding together these 13 sovereign states in one great confederation they naturally leaked back to the country from which they were separating to learn something of the parliamentary practice of England. They found the Lords could not alter or amend, but theoretically they had the power to reject ; but they said the same as the Lords said in 1771, they could not alter or amend and yet be able to re ject, and that, though theoretically right, inEugland it was never enforced, and they came to the conclusion that if they brought to bear indirectly upon the Commons, it was the more necessary that this direct influence on their part should be strengthened thcl secured. The history of all Forms of constitutional government from the earliest times showed the necessity for a second institution, separate and distinct, which should not control legislation, or resist the progress of improvement, but demand time for considera tion, compel the moving power to think twice, end appeal from excitement to sobriety. (Cheers.) Now he would be asked how all this bore on the question of privilege ? (Hear.) He would explain. If the Lords only claimed that which he was sure the members of the House of Com- mons could not deny them—identity of feelings and interest with the nation at large—if they claimed only to be the servants of the nation, employed in the same business as the Commons, charged with the same interests, obedient to the same authority, responsible to the same tribunal of opi nion, what interest could the countryhave in dispensing with their services on great occasions, as auditors of finance ? The nation had decreed that its business should be trans- acted by two chambers; the one popularly elected and moved by every gale of public opinion. It was a mistake to say that because the Lords were a permanent and inde pendent bodythey were, therefore, altogether irresponsible. On the contrary, he believed there was no body responsi- ble. They were the only important public body who held power on the tenure of good conduct. A very few mis takes would jeopardise their position, and they discovered that fact in 1832, when their defence of the rotton boroughs brought them into so much disfavour. They had since re covered their position, and he believed that of the two branches of the legislature they were really the most popular at the present moment. At the same time they were profoundly conscious of this truth, that they could only effectually oppose the House of Commons for one purpose, namely, to give time for the more matured and decided manifestation of the national will. (Hear, hear.) He could not conceive a more genuine responsi bility than that which their lordships exercised. They had always acted upon it, and every impartial student of his tory must admit that there was no institution which, as a whole, had shown so profound and correct a knowledge of the feeling and movement of the nation, and had so steadily in all times of political turmoil made the national sentiment the basis of its own conduct. (Hear, hear.) Then upon what grounds were they to exclude the Lords from their share of national legislation ? Financial legislation in these days assumed very different proportions to what it did two centuries ago. It was now by far the largest and most im portant branch of the duties of the legislature, and to ex clude the Lords from finance was really to exclude them from more than half of the legislative business of the coun try. (Hear, hear.) Were the Commons infallible in finance ? Was there no hasty, no ill-considered, and no selfish legis lation on finance ? He believed himself that financial ques tions, especially those which must ultimately fall to the lot of the Commons to decide, required the balancing and regulating action of the Peers. He admitted, as everybody must admit, that all financial legislation should originate with the Commons, but it was no less xecessai y that there should exist the reviewing power of a separate and inde pendent chamber. So strongly did he feel this, that even if law and precedent combined, which assn-edly they did not, to exclude the Lords from all share in financial legisla tion, he should say that as the effect of the Reform Act was to give the predominance of power to the Commons, and as the further effect of any other reform bill must be in the same direction, it would be wise to arrive at come ahjustment of the relations and functions of the two Houses of Parliament so as to secure their harmonious co-operation. When that time did-arrive, instead of limiting the action of the peers, it would be better to relax instead of to tighten the restric tions which were now enforced. Such being his Niew of the functions of the peers, he asked upon what grounds they could challenge this last exercise of the undoubted legal powers of the House of Lords? Tke bill for the repeal of the paper duty was submitted to the peers as part of a scheme of financial policy based on the commercial treaty; and if it were really and truly the opinion of the peers that the promises held out by the Government were based on treacherous calculations; that the privileges offered were too dearly purchased ; that our manufacturers were still wait ing in the ante-chambers of the French court for the ad vantage originally held out to them ; that their roaring trade was a bubble ; that while the trumpet of war was all but sounding we durst not disregard the signal, and parsi moniously neglect our national defences ; that by the addi tion of a penny to the income-tax the House of Commons would revolutionize our whole system of finance; that the promised surplus had become an inevitable deficiency; that so far from remitting taxes it was the duty of the Ministers to augment them ; if such were the convictions of the peers what could they have done other than that which they had done ? (Cheers.) They had simply done that which as sworn and responsible legislators they were bound to do. To their honour be it said they had never for a single in stant hesitated, but by a majority unprecedented, and one which derived still more importance from its character, than its numbers, they interposed that veto which checked the Commons in its headlong, precipitate, and mad career ; and they challenged for their act the verdict of the coun try. (Cheers.) Hon. members on that (the Ministerial) side of the house said the peers had taken upon themselves Eo impoeu a new tax, an/1 fa the country. That was a fallacy easy of explanation; for it was notorious that the Lords had accepted the expendi ture of the country according to the estimate of the Chancellor of the Exchequer as sanctioned and approved by the House of Commons. They had not pretended to in terfere with the exclusive right of the House of Commons to say what that expenditure should be, or to increase the expenditure by a single shilling, but believing that the credit of the country could not be maintained if the paper duty were repealed they had not thought it their duty to share the responsibility of leaving the country in an em barrassing position. The peers had not pretended to make a budget, but they had distrusted the calculations of the Chancellor of the Exchequer, and had suspected the opera tion of his scheme until it had been submitted to the test of time. All they had done had been to take a wide, neces sary, and just security that under the apparent remission of one tax the necessity should not be established of im posing another of a more objectionable character. (Op position cheers.) The House of Commons was itself daily assuming more power by establishing new precedents. At the present moment all bills virtually originated in the Commons, but it was only the natural and inevitable result of the historic working of our system. This last act of the Lords had not been dictated by any desire on their part to brave and affront the Commons, but it was simply the natural working of the constitution to meet and remedy a definite emergency. The budget was in reality a financial revolution into which the House of Commons had been pai tly charmed and partly coerced. Many of those who voted in the majority had their misgivings, but they did not see their remedy. Their only remedy was the House of Lords, which instinctively, from the nature of the circumstances, supplied a remedy. The act of the peers was perfectly natural and constit utionahand was a happy illustration of the practical self-working of the English constitution. (Cheers.) It was the unconscious encroachment of the Commons that had quickened into life the dormant powers and latent quali ties of the Lords; and this admirable and healthful vitality of the constitution, developing spontaneously new processes to counteract new tendencies to disease, was the best guarantee for its safety and durability. (Cheers.) But this was not the constitution which the advocates of " action" wished to defend ; their constitution was the despotism of the House of Commons, the tyranny of a single chamber, the absolute dominion of an unchained, uncon trolled, irresponsible democracy. (Cheers and disapproba tion.) That was; a constitution which would indeed be an anomaly, iuinous to England, fatal to every interest from the highest to the lowest, from the peer down to the trader and artisan ; for when the upper house of legislature lostits independence, the lower would soon cease to represent the true interests of the country. For this reason, because he believed that the act of 1832 gave as much power to the Commons as relatively they ought to have, and because he agreed in what the noble lord the Prime Minister had said, that the dangers to public liberty in the future were more to be apprehended from the encroachments of the Commons than from the usurpations of the Lords, he was glad to find a majority of the house, under the noble lord's guidance, prepared to justify the course which the Lords had pursued. It was not a dangerous precedent if the House of Lords had,checked the House of Commons, when the House of Commons had not consulted the interests of the nation ; and he only hoped that precedent would be faithfully recorded and followed if any such occasion here after arose. It was for such occasions that the House of Lords existed, to be sane when tho Commons were wild— (great cheering from the Opposition benches)—to postpone an irrevocable mischief till the country had time to come to its senses. They were the guardians of the constitution, and on this occasion they had kept faithful watch, and sounded an alarm which had raised the nation and arrested the Commons in their irregular course. (Renewed cheer ing.) And if that arrest had been illegal, why did not the Government and the House of Commons appeal to their judges out of doors ? Was it because they knew that those judges would affirm the judgment of the Lords, and that it would be found that the House of Lords really represented the nation, and the Commons represented a Ministerial ma jority—that majority itself being of an equivocal and pre carious nature; for as the noble lord himself had shown, it was a vanishing quantity; the third trial would have con verted it into a minority, and he was not sure that in that division the noble lord would not have been found in the opposite lobby to his own Chancellor of the Exchequer. (Cheers and laughter.) The fact was, that they had on this occasion no materials for a contest with the Lords. The attempt had lamentably broken down. The law was not with them; the precedents were not for them; constitu tional principle and policy were both against them—and as for the country, if they appealed to that, the nation would affirm what history would certainly record, that this ses sion of 1860 hid been doubly memorable for the rashness, the recklessness, the ruinous disregard of consequences that had marked the proceedings of the Commons—(cheers and disapprobation)—and for the calmer courage, the dignity, and patriotism that had shed a lustre on the saving wisdom of the House of Lords. (Great clamour and cheering.) Mr. BRIGHT, who was much cheered on rising, sail that he was struck with a certain inconsistency in the right hon. gentleman who had just resumed his seat. He was sur prised that the right hon. gentleman had not concluded by moving that certain words of the first resolution should be left out, and, indeed, that the declaration which the house gaffe their assent to the power to reject there should be also power to aniend, but With a real responsibility, every two members being representatiVes of a peculiar sovereign state. But that assent did reject and aMond financial bills in a Manner which was never permitted or proposed in this country till the eitfuordinary speech to which the house had just listened. (Hear.) Se - Von years after that contest there arose another contest in which a resolution was passed which was always referred to as the strongest resolution which the Commons had ever passed on this subject. The Commons declared then that all aids and supplies to the king lay in the Commons, and all bills for supplies should begin with the Commons, and was their sole and un doubted right. The hon. gentleman, after referring to a few other precedents, said that in 1702 there was another precedent, which declared that the granting of public money was the undoubted right of the Commons alone. Now he asked the house as reasonable men, supposing they were discussing questions between the American Senate and the American House of Representatives, or between any two assemblies in any other country, what would be the conclu sion to which they would necessarily come as the purpose and object of all these declarations and resolutions to which he had referred, and which were only a portion of those which were to be found in the pathway of the journals of the house for the last 500 years ? Would they say that it led to the conclusion that the Lords would throw out a bill repealing a tax of the value and magnitude of £1,300,000 a year ? Would they say that if the Lords could not begin a tax, or collect a tax, or dispose of it, or control it in any way, or even give advice to the Commons with regard to a tax—that notwithstanding all this, which was clear and undeniable, that they could in the face of this reject a bill which repealed a tax of the amount of £1,300,000 a-year, without violating Parliamentary usage, and running coup• ter to all the declarations of this house for many centuries past? (Cheers.) He put it before the committee, and if hon. members had done him the favour of reading the draft report that he proposed, they would see that he put before the committee the whole history of these declarations in language not ambiguous, not feeble, but clear and forcible, and that could not be mistaken ; and then he wished to ask the committee, as ho was now asking the house, what was the end and object which the Commons had in view in these repeated declarations and resolutions touching the grants of supply and the taxation of the people. He should say that these declarations did this—they confirmed for 500 years, and consecrated that which till within the last hour he had thought every man in England admitted —(hear, hear)—as a fundamental and unchangeable prin ciple in the English Government and constitution, and in the rights of the English people—that taxation and repre sentation were inseparab!e in this kingdom. (Loud cheese.) Let them look how these declarations and resolutions ap plied to the case before them. They were in the year 1860, and for a long period they had had no question of import ance of this nature, so that they began to fancy that after all there was no great importance in such a question. They had had their personal liberty in this country almost longer in some classes of society than history showed any example of, and people fancied probably that the less of personal liberty might not be very great or might not be in danger. So in this case they were so confident of their right and of their power that they did not sufficiently apprehend or comprehend that there might be an infringement of the right in the proposed diminution of the power. The paper duty was founded, he believed, in the reign of Queen Anne, partly for the revenue and partly for another purpose, the very purpose, he presumed, which might in some degree account for its rejection. The tax was imposed to prevent the spreading of political information. (Oh.) He saw an hon. gentleman opposite who was very much astonished at this, but the hon. gentleman was not aware that all this was stated in the preamble of the bill. (Hear, hear.) Public opinion in those days allowed of very bad reasons being given. Now they might be acted upon very often, but they were not given. (Cheers and laughter.) Well, from the time of Queen Anne to this time this paper duty had crippled a very important industry, it had taxed a great trade, it had taxed all the trades which required large quantities of paper, as the trades of Manchester, of Sheffield, of Nottingham, of Birmingham, and so forth. But more than that, it had successfully done what Queen Anne's Miaisters wanted—it had burdened and to a large extent it had strangled the press of this country. (Oh and laughter from the Opposition.) And now within the,last 30 years, as members on the opposite side of the house by this time were becoming conscious of, new principles were established in this country with regard to taxation and industry; and some very powerful advocates of those new principles he had the pleasure of seeing sitting opposite to him to-night. The right hon. the member for Stroud (Mr. Herman) had gone upon the old mode 'of discussion when arguments were not plentiful and facts were entirely wanting. He had raised Bentham's old friend, the hobgoblin argument, and had tried to show them that some frightful calamity would happen if the paper duty wore repealed. It was but a million and a quarter. Did any one believe that the pro sperity, the success of any great interest in this country could possibly depend on a million more or less in the gene ral revenue of the empire. A million was a million. (Laughter from the Oppneition,) MN was very glad to have said something in which the hon. member for Leicestershire could coincide. (Laughter.) There was no member of that house who had laid more stress upon the importance of a million as a tax upuu ate people than. ho (Mr. Bright) had. It was the tax of many towns, of many villages, and might make the difference between comfort and desolation sometimes. Therefore he was the last person to undervalue theumount of a million of public revenue. But still he should be making himself foolish, and appearing to make the house the same, if he were to say that a million in this country, now that the taxes amounted to 70 millions a year, as compared with what it was when they amounted to 50 millions—if he were to say that a million sterling was of the gigantic importance which hon. gentlemen seemed to think. On this million, however, Mr. Horsman founded an argument of recklessness, of precipitancy, of madness, and, he thought, of drunkenness. (No, no.) Well that was to be inferred, for the right hon. gentleman made use of the converse, and spoke of sobriety. (Cheers and laughter.) The noble lord the member for London, last night, in his speech told them, and they all knew that it was within the recollection of almost the youngest member of the house, that there had been excise duties on many other articles repealed. At one time there was an excise duty on candles, on soap, on leather, on glass. All those duties had been repealed ; and could they find a man from John o'Groat's to the Land's End who would not tell them that those principles applied to the repeal of these excise duties were of essen tial benefit not only to the particular trades but to the great mass of the people ? Having followed that course for many years they came to the year 1860, when it was proposed to repeal the paper duty, which had been recom mended to the house by the Cabinet, by the public officers, asked for by numerous .petitions, and wished for by every one in the country who took an intelligible view of what was essential to aid the efforts which the Government were making by liberal grants to promote the instruction of the people. Well, this tax was £1,300,000, and it was a ques tion whether that should be repealed, or sugar or tea be re lieved a million. It was the same to the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he took one or the other. In the case of tea and sugar it would be a relief merely to the amount of a million; but in repealing the paper duty ha relieved a great industry and several other trades that depended for their prosperity upon an abundant and cheap supply of paper. But the question might be still more narrowed. If the paper duty had been repealed friim the 16th of August, as proposed, the loss in the financial year would have amounted to hardly more than £600,000, and would hardly have reached £700,000. And were they come to this, that they could not take off £700,000 a year from an excise • which was strangling a great trade, and put on an addi tional penny of income tax, but the constitution and the usage of Parliament must be violated, and they must bring in a foreign power to check their precipitate and headlong career. (Cheers.) Now, he confessed it might be far from the modesty that became a member of that ,house, but he was of opinion the House of Commons was the best judge in this country of that was required by the financial con dition of the country. There was scarcely, a trade in the country that was not represented, and he ventured to say there was no representative assembly in the world, which, in the last 20 years, had done more in financial and fiscal reforms than this house had done, and with greater profit to the people. (Cheers.) And yet, at the end of this period, when their triumphs were to be found, not in granite and bronze ornaments, but in the increased comforts el the people, and the increased and undoubted loyalty of the population, they wore now forsooth asked by the right hon. gentleman (Mr. Horsman) to abdicate thoir functions, and to ask 400 gen tlemen who were not traders, who were not financiers, who had no means of understanding these questions—they were asked to permit those 400 gentlemen to advise, to check, and even to control them. (Hear.) Why, it was one of the points which grieved him on this question that he saw the House of Lords taking of all cases perhaps the worst that could possibly come before them, and inflicting, suddenly and un expectedly, and, in his opinion, groundlessly, and most harshly, very cruel treatment upon all who are interested in the excise duty on paper. And yet they were now asked to overthrow the fabric which had grown up in this coun try, and had existed, and without change, for at least 500 years. For if they went so far back as 1640, they would find: the House of Commons making this declaration, to which he would ask the members of the present house to give their attention. They said that they had had uninter rupted possession of this privilege--the privilege that was of an exclusive control over the taxation and the finances of the country —ever since 1407, confirmed by a multitude of precedents before and after that date, and unshaken by one adverse precedent for more than 300 years. Well, if that were so, it carried back the possession of the right for a period of 520 years ; yet now they asked in the most un blushing and audacious manner—(cheers)—to overthrow this magnificent and time-honoured usage, and admit a new power who had hitherto been unaccustomed to exercise it —the hereditary branch of the legislature. (Cheers.) The House of Lords had committed two offences which he had much rather they had not committed, for he was anxious that they should not depreciate themselves in the eyes of the people of this country. (Oh, oh.) If hon. gentle men were as anxious as he was that the House of Lords should continue, limited to its proper functions, doing all the good that was possible for it, and likewise doing as little harm as possible—(laughter)—they would not laugh with that kind of unbelieving expression which they had evidently intended just now to convey. (Hear, hear.) The House of Lords had not behaved even with fair honour to the House of Commons in this matter. They knew—or at least every man of them who knew anything of what he was voting about—(laughter)—knew that the House of Com mons had repealed the paper excise, not because they wished to remit a million of taxation, but because they did not wish to strangle a great industry merely for the sake of raising a million. (No, no.) He would appeal to the hon. baronet the member for Somersetshire (Sir W. Miles) if he was not correct P (Hear, hear.) It wag on that account that this house had trati.sferred a million of taxation from the paper excise to the income tax. That was known to the House of Lords, and although they might not Lowe approved of the change, still it was not honourable treatment of this house to act as they had done ; and even if they had that power of the American senate which the right hon, gentle man (Mr. Horsman) wished them to possess, it wifald not have been fair in them to enact the additional penny of income tax and then to refuse to repeal the tax upon paper. (Cheers.) That was one view of the question which ho wished every man to understand, and he could not believe that there was a member of the House of Lords who did not wish the case could not be put in that shape. (Hear, hear.) Another offence that the House of Lords had com mitted was, that they had trampled upon the confidence, and had taken advantage of the faith, of the House of Com mons. (Hear.) The right hon. gentleman the member for Bucks had made a very curious statement on that point—a statement which if he (Mr. Bright) were a mem ber of the House of Lords—(laughter)—he should be dis _ posed to find fault with. The right hon. gentleman said it was the neglect—the lathes, he thought the right hon. gen• tleman called it—of the House of Commons that had given the House of Lords an opportunity of acting as they had done. But surely if for 500 years such an act had never been known—if the search of 20 gentlemen in committee had been unable to find anything approaching to it, the House of Commons might very well conclude that they would abide in the usage of the constitution, and would not take advantage of a change which the House of Commons had made with a view to the benefit of trade. For the West India planters asked the house not to trouble them with the sugarduty every year, and thus it was that those duties, for example, had come to be made permanent taxes. But according to the right hon. gentleman, the House of Lords were political burglars. Bars, bolts, chains, locks, fetters, and everything they could devise, must be provided in order to keep them out; for if they once gave them the slightest advantage, in they would come. (Cheers.) With regard to the great majority by which the right hon. gentleman said the Paper Duties Bill was rejected by the House of Lords, he recollected speaking not long ago with a member of that house on the subject, and he should not mind tell ing the house what the noble lord said about it. The noble lord observed that if they had had the regular House of Lords—that was to say, the 100 members who reallytrans acted its business—the Paper Duties Bill would certainly ' have passed . . (Oh, oh, and cheers.) But, continued the noble lord, that had happened which they could all under stand. Some 200 other members who hardly ever came down to the house were, as he said, let loose for the occa sion. (Cheers.) They were most of them unknown to the public as politicians, but they came down to vote out the bill by a large majority ; and they did it with a chuckle and a jollity as if they thought they were making a violent at tack upon the Ministry, and especially upon the Chancel lor of the Exchequer. (Hear, hear.) In the House of Com mons they sometimes complained of Ministerspassing mea sures very late at night, when only 50 members were pre sent, of whom 30 were supporters of the Government ; but in the House of Lords three were a quorum—(laughter) --- and those three men, with proxies in their pockets, were ready to dispose of a question of £70,000,000 of taxes drawn from the industry of this country. (Cheers, and oh.) And if these 200 members of the House of Lords were to Come down any other night, there was no single thing, however liberal or however good, that they would not have rejected, and thereby have frustrated the beneficent inten tions of the House of Commons. (" Oh, oh," and cheers.) After all he had said he was about to make this admission. The House of Lords could reject a bill if they liked ; they could initiate a bill if they liked ; they could that night, if it were not so late—but they all went home before seven o'clock—(laughter and sheers)—move to bring in a bill to levy a tax, or to vote money, or to do anything they liked, or they could, with regard to any bill they were about to send down to that house. They were omnipotent within the four walls of their house, as the House of Commons was omnipotent within the four walls of that house. But having made that admission, he said that when the house of Lords took a course contrary to the whole practice of their house and of Parliament altogether, it was necessary for that house to consider what course it ought to pursue. The House of Commons could not formally compel them to make any change, but they could take such a course as would compel them to make a change. His opinion was that it would have been consistent with the dignity of that house, irrespective of the importance of the tax, amounting to some £1,300,000 or £700,000, to have passed another bill to repeal the paper duties. (Cheers.) If that had not been a duty which he (Mr. Bright) had considered it desirable to repeal—and there were severel duties which he considered it would be more desirable for a Chancellor of the Exchequer to repeal than others—he would have laid aside the question of any parti cular tax. The question before them was not a question of any particular tax ; it was a question far more perilous to the country, more fatal to the independence of the house, namely, whether they would lessen and impair the powers which had been exercised by their predecessors. (Cheers.) He believed that if the noble viscount, taking up a positionwhich he (Mr. Bright) thought he had failed to do in this matter —(cheers)—had asked the house—not, perhaps, on the ground that the paper duties were the best tax to re peal, but that the House of Commons, having come to that conclusion, were bound to abide by it ; if he had asked them to pass another bill and send it up to the House of Lords, it would have given that house an opportunity of recon sidering their position ; it would have given the House of Lords the same opportunity; and in all probability, as he believed, a course would have been taken, without passion —without resentment—by which these difficulties would kave been passed over, and both houses would have pro ceeded more regularly than they were likely to do under the course which had been pursued by the House of Lords. Having stated that he would leave the question of these resolutions, he saw no reason whatever in the argument that these duties were necessary, so that it was perilous to repeal them. Their repeal was consistent with the policy of the Whigs before the accession of Sir R. Peel to office, with the policy of Lord Derby's Government, of the Govern ment of Lord J. Russell, of the Government of Lord Pal merston, and of Lord Derby's last Government, and of the existing Government. The policy of the *repeal of the paper duties was the recognised policy of the house, and the admitted interest of the country. Then why, unless it were for the sake of a party triumph, or to attack a parti cular Minister—(cheers)—should this question of a sum of £700,000 be raised to a magnitude which did not belong to it; and why, if not for the sake of such a party triumph, should the measure be disgraced and tortured as it had been, through the contrary action of the House of Lords? (Oh, oh, and cheers.) He was told there were members of the Government who would not support the Government in such a course. If the noble lord had brought it forward on these grounds, he doubted whether the house would not have taken precisely the course indicated by the resolu tions, and have passed the bill by a much greater majority than that by which they had passed it before. (Cheers.) He was aware that there were gentlemen on that side of the house who had offered great temptations to hon. gentlemen opposite to step out into opposition. An hon. gentleman behind him had spoken of the Chan seller of the Exchequer as a reckless and unfit administra tor of the public finances. (Opposition cheers, and cries of " No.") The hon. gentleman said he confined his obser vations to the question of the paper dirties. He (Mr. Bright) did not mean to go further than that in the state ment he had made. But in 1853 they had the same Chan cellor of the Exchequer. It was alleged that he committed great errors. (Cheers and counter cheers.) Well, the right hon. gentleman opposite, who was Chancellor of the Ex chequer, was not in office long enough to commit any great errors. He brought in a budget, and the House of Com mons rejected it ; and on the second time when he brought in a budget, he put everything off to his successor. (Cheers and laughter.) Anybody could carry on for a session on that principle. But that was not the principle of the pre sent Chancellor of the Exchequer. (Cheers and counter cheers.) In 1853 the right hon. member for the Univer sity of Oxford was Chancellor of the Exchequer. He (Mr. Bright) would put it to both sides of the house whether it was not the fact that the main strength of the Govern ment of Lord Aberdeen was developed by and concen trated in the action of the Chancellor of the Exchequer upon the taxation of the country which obtained universal praise from the country, and which gave a strength to that mixed Government which it did not otherwise possess ? (Cheers.) Then they came to the present year ; and with out attempting to depreciate the character or the abilities of the noble viscount or his colleagues, he asked whether the power which the present Government had possessed during this session had not been gained mainly through the beneficent propositions of the Chancellor of the Exche quer. (': Oh loh !" laughter, and cheers.) Some said the house was alternately charmed and coerced ; but he thought the house was never less likely than now to submit to such influence. The house had shown a wonderful independ ence—independence of its own p u o indus try, n f iversalExchequer was rinc i p les and of every thing that it had done 'before. Every one would agree that when the budget of the Chancellor of the propounded and am among receivedgwasthe witoeufladveur appealf it t o wtheroesenoent the farmers a o p th p e r r oba si t d io e n. wb ( e Ch b e a e d rs v .) ete l - a lt i 3 n n alltoo,th w e i g t r h e a a t l l c i b ti u e t s (Hear, hear.) A great deal had been said against the French treaty since it was first mooted.i t be that A Government which ernrnentjournal in might this country, whose motto Pascal said wa s adopted by one o f the ancients—" Omnia pro temporis ; nihil pro veritate," had said much against it. Every pos sible form of falsehood had been propounded with regard to the treaty; and a right hon. gentleman had not hesitated that night to give currency to statements which were wholly inaccur ate, and to which he (Mr. Bright), if any w h ere else, would apply a stronger term. (Hear, hear.) He had said that the manufacturers of England were painted somethings in the antechambers of the'Emperor of the French. That statement was wholly untrue. No man in England was more competent to give an opinion on the question than he was. (Hear, hear.) Nothing could exceed the good faith and liberality with which the question was being treatedby the commissioners of the French Government. (Hear, hear.) They were as anxious as our commissioners that there should be a great trade between the two countries— (hear)—and when a government in amity with our Govern ment was endeavouring frankly and fairly to open the doors of the two countries to extended trade, he was neither a statesman nor a patriot who endeavoured to defame and de , predate the treaty in the eyes of the people, and thereby, if possible, to prevent its success. (Cheers.) Some eaid that the budget was novel and gigantic in its proportions. Thes I only novelty was the abolition of the paper duty ; the tariff was exactly the tariff which hon. gentlemen had been re commending since they were converted. (Cheers.) Alter having acknowledged certain great principles and witnessed their beneficent action through the country, was it manly, generous, or becoming in hon. gentlemen opposite to oppom the further extension of those principles which the whole country admitted to be rood ? (Hear, hear.) They boasted of the freedom of commerce. The commerce of this country Nad doubled since he had had a seat in that house. (Hear.) Ha had never thought such an extension possible. By attacking, through the Chancellor of the Exchequer, principles so excellent, and which had been proved to be so beneficial to the country, hon. gentlemen did not increase their reputtztion or influence with those whom they ;pro fessed to repre.4o. - tt. There was not a cottage in the king dom where the \rya:As of the Chancellor of the Exchequer did not give hope, i1,1,:d where his measure—defended by au eloquence which few could equal, and a logic which none could contest—did not spread comfort upon the humble board, and give consolagou to the toiling millions of this kingdom. (Cheers.) Having these views,, and feeling them from his heart, he asked hon. gentlemen to put aside this constant contest on financial changes. He appealed to the experience of the past and the present condition of the country, and asked them to interpose ne furth'er obstacles to those principles of good legislation. He grievad that noble viscount had not shown more courage , and that the house had not manifested greater self-respect. ttlear.) He believed that this might be regarded as the first' occa sion for 500 years on which the Commons of England a based themselves before the irresponsible and hereditary chan 2ber. (Hear.) He at least and those who acted with him w4)uld be clear from any participation in this ; they would be free from the shame which he believed posterity would attac h to the chief ectors in this proceeding. (Heal%) The house would recollect that he protested against the order of referee Ice, because he thought it was calculated to evade rather thar t to promote their investigation. But being on the committ es, he sat and watched on the committee with an earnest s in cerity on the part of the House of Commons. He felt it an. honour to sit in that house up to the present time. lie hoped that hereafter the character of the house might n et be impaired by the course aboutto be taken. He had ende a voured to show to his countrymen the almost treason whic di was about to be committed against them. (lam, hear.) Ile had refused to dishonour the names and the malice; of such men as Coke and Seldon, and Glanvil and Py 1 11 - ; and if he was defeated in this struggle he should have ti AB consolation, that he had done all he could to maintain tl 115 honour of the house, and not to sacrifice in any degree tb to sacred interests which his constituents had committed t V his care. (Loud cheers.) Mr. MELLOR and Mr„ WHALLEY both moved the ad-. journment of the debate amidst loud cries for a division. Lord PALMERSTON hoped the house would Some to s. division that night. (Hear.) The question had been fully discussed, and he believed the house was prepared to come to a decision upon it. (Hear, heat%) 6 Mr. BRIGHT suggested that the first resolution might be agreed to, and any further discussion taken on the se cond and third resolutions. (" Hear, hear," and "No, no.") Mr. DISRAELI said the whole of the resoluticrns had bowl discussed together, and he thought the house had better' decide upon them as a whole. Afte.r a few words from Mr. CONINGHAM, which were) inaudibie, Mr. 31.:ELLOR said that he should withdraw his motion in respect to the first resolution, but he should wish to-offer a few remarks on the second. (Cries of "Oh, oh," and " Divide.") The SPEAKER proceeded to read the first resolution. Mr. WHALLEY moved the adjournment of the debate. (Tremendous uproar.) Sir C. NAPII3It observed that that was the third time the hon. member had attempted to obtain a hearing. The SPEAKER pronounced the first resolution to have been agreed to, and proceeded to read the second. Mn MELLOR said that he believed the second resolu tion expressed more th3n its framers had intended, and more than the precedents justified. He proposed to a.dd the words " relating, among other matters, to taxation." (Loud cries of " Move.") The hon. member moved the insertion of the words. Lord PALMERSTON objected to the insertion of these words. The words of the r esolution, however seviwely they might be criticised, had been carefully considerect,, and fully expressed tho meaning they were intended to convey. The words "bills of several descriptions" were sufficieitly comprehensive ; the meaning being, that bills had been Iv jc.tca ielating to taxation. He thought the words proposed totally unnecessary. Mr. BRIGHT said that as the resobe tion stood it would beat the interpretation that bills like thu Paper Duties Re peal Bill had been previously rejected. As that was noto riously not the case, and as some degenerate committee might 50 years hence be using this resolution as a precedent, perhaps it would be better to take until Monday to consider the amendment. (Renewed uproar.) Mr. WHALLEY moved that this debate be adjourned, amidst great confusion and cries of "Hear, hear," and " Divide." The SPEAKER put the question, when a few voices answering, " Aye," the house divided, and the numbers were — For the adjournment Against it Majority —397 The announcement was received with loud applause and much laughter. Mr. MELLOWS amendment was then put, to insert, after the word "relating," in resolution 2, the words, "against other matters." The house divided, when there appeared— For the amendment ... 59 Against it Majority .. —303 The seceitd resolution was then agreed to On the third resolution being proposed, Lord FEN DSOY hoped the house would adjourn, and give time to consider the question. (Oh, oh.) He moved that the debate 5e adjourned. Lord PALMEV.STON holed the noble lord would not persevere with his notion, inasmuch as there was a great deal of public business for next week, and it would be very inconvenient to adjourn the debate. After a few words from Mr. SCULLY, The amendment was negatived without a division, and the resolution agreed to. The Local Taxation Bill was read a third time and passed. The Indemnity Bill went thfough committee. MAYNOOTH COLLEGE. After a short discussion, the house went into eomnaittee. Mr. CARDWELL then moved a resolution on which to found a bill for the purpose of providing funds to keep a Royal College of Maynooth in repair. The measure he P r ''' . posed was in conformity with the 'recommendation of the committee, the majority of which were protestants, viz., that the repairs should be paid for out of the funds already in the hands of the trustees for the general purposes of the college. Mr. NEWDEGATE defended the conduct of the house of Commons in refusing to provide funds for the ay.stenta tion of the edifice. Mr. DEEDES moved that the Chairman report progress, but the resolution was eventually agreed to, SELLING AND HAWKING GOODS ON SUN PAY BILL. A IC N T D I : N AC (N T O. ( 2 I ) B:6 i ) LL. This bill was withdrawn. METROPOLITAN BUILDINGS ACT (1856) • , AMENDMENT BILL. The report of amendments was agreed a agi gr v e e e d d t t o o l BURIAL GROUNDS t (I R R I B S : AMENDMENT BILL. AD Tte ut re A po L r T t e y f amendmen ts This bill passed throug h committee. TRAMWAYS c4AN v p ropos e d p ( o l s ß e d E Lt the (IRELAND) exemption BILL. In committee on thi s bill. Sir E. R ijlh of Dublin f-m its optio n. Th e committee divided-- For the mo tion ................. . .. 0 Aga i n st it l ir , and EG the ß°G clauses A N o f T hi s result was received with l o G ere ° loud laughter. thentehtuboivll were edtha a t gre the ed committee report prog r ess ; but this p roposal was negatived without a divi sion, of amendmentslNGANDD was YElNaGgroWed t o BILL. The The house rose at 3 o'clock. BIRTHS. TREMAYNE On the sth inst., at Edinburgh, Lady Frances Tremayne, of a daughter. MACDONALD .—On the 4th inst., at 29, Chester-stre B elgrave-square, the Hon. Mrs. Macdonald, of a (laugh tor. MARRIAGES. ALLINSON—FARNFIELD.—On the 4th inst., at St. Marga ret's Church, Lee, John Allinson, Esq., M.R.C.S., of 1, Spital-square, to Anne Charlotte, eldest daughter o S. Farnfield, Esq., of Woolwich. JONES—COLLIER.-4n the sth inst., at Bray, Berks, Charles Collier, son of Edward H. Jones, Esq., to Hen rietta, daughter of John Payne Collier, Esq. DEATHS. CARTREW.—On the 4th inst,, at Canonbuty, J. Carthew, Esq., formerly of Liskeard, aged 64. . GRAY.—On the sth inst., at Brompton, James Gray, rector of Dibden, Hants, aged 67. LoNnow : Printed and Published by AITJAPO YOUNG of No. 112, Strand, Printer, at The Sun Office, No. 112, Strand, in the Precinct of the Savoy, in the minty •f Middlesex, Saturday, July 7, 1860.,