The Sun. — London, England, 1861-05-17 00:00:00

Vhioh I have received from the secretary the company is as follows : " May 16,' 1861. " A letter from the Postmaster-General was delivered at half-past 5 o'clock yesterday evening at the office of the com pany, containing the intimation that he had declared t h e G a lway Contract at an end. If time be permitted, the com p a ny will be prepared to join issue upon all the reasons given by the Postmaster• General, and I am desired by the Board to request that yon will add this statement to any answer that you may feel called upon to give to Mr. Bax ter's question this evening." (Hear, hear.) MERCHANT SHIPPING ACTS. Sir 11. STRACEY asked the President of the Board of Trade when he purposed to bring in his bill to amend the Merchant Shipping Acts, of which he had at different times given notice ? Mr. M. GIBSON said that this question had been un avoidably postponed in consequence of the pressure of public business, but he would introduce a bill ou the sub ject immediately after the Whitsuntide recess, and he trusted that' the state of business would not further delay the consideration of it to any length of time. THE CONVENTION WITH FRANCE. In reply to Sir H. STRACEY, The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER said that her Majesty's Government had received no official informa tion of any proceedings in the French Senate calculated to infringe the provisions of the convention in reference to the fisheries of the two-countries. He believed that there was every desire on the part of the French Government to act in good faith in regard to carrying out the provisions of the convention. ALLEGED BREACH OF PRIVILEGE• Mr. M'EVOY drew the attention of the house to what he considered a breach of privilege in reference to himself. He entered the room where the select committee on the registration of births, deaths, and marriages in Ireland was sitting, when the examination of witnesses was going on. The hon. member for Clonmel (Mr. Bagwell), who was in the chair in the absence of the hon. gentleman the Secre tary for Ireland, beckoned to him and told him he was out of order in being present. He replied that he waq not, and then retired. Being, as he considered, acquainted with the rights of members, and having a knowledge of this subject, he thought it right to bring the subject before the h ouse , but without the slightest hostility towards th e honourable member (Mr. Bagwell,) who acted _ _ is ;gaoran(:e of the mat+a of the house. Thr hon. =amber -read certain rides and decisions of antecedent Speakers of the house to show that members were entitled to be present at committees unless they were secret or in deliberation. Mr. BAGWELL complained that due notice of the sub ject had not been given to him. Mr. M'EVOY said that he had delivered a letter at the hon. member's that morning stating that he would bring on the subject. Mr. BAGWELL then explained that the committee were really in deliberation at the time when the hon. mem ber entered the room. After some remarks from Lord NAAS and Mr. MAGUIRE, The subject dropped. BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE. In reply to Mr. DISRAELI, Lord PALMERSTON said that he hoped he was not too sanguine in his expectation that the Financial Budget Bill would be read a second time that evening. He was most anxious to consult the convenience of hon. members when it was consistent with the progress of the business of Parliament. Assuming, therefore, that the financial bill would be read a second time that evening he proposed not to proceed further with it until next Mon day week, so that honourable members would not be put to the inconvenience of coming to London next week in consequence of having to consider any question of public importance, when it was of course desirable that there should be as full a house as possible. CUSTOMS AND INLAND REVENUE BILL. Mr. HENNESSY contended that there 'his an irregu • larity in the manner in which the chicory and tea resolu tions had been introduced into the Customs and Inland Revenue Bill. Th 9 SPEAKER explained that thahon. member was in error, as there vas no irregularity whatever. These reso lutions were property introduced into the bill in question as constituting the necessary subject of ways and means. Mr. DU CANE then resumed the adjourned debate on the Customs and Inland Revenue Bill. He deprecated in the strongest terms the policy of abolishing the duty on paper while that on tea was retained, and contended that even amongst paper manufacturers and stationers there was no unanimity in favour of the remission of the former im post. If the case for the retention of that duty were strong last year they were much stronger this year under the cir cumstances of the country. Re believed that this proposed •remission was merely a concession and a salve to the wounded feelings of a considerable party in that country who, in his opinion, entertained principles most dangerous to the constitution. He appealed to the house to show their pru dence and foresight, and reject this provision of the budget. Sir W. HEATHCOTE also opposed the remission of the tax, chiefly . in reference to its conflicting with the privileges of the House of Lords. THE PRINCESS ALICE ANNUITY BILL. Mr. Justice Wiles and Mr. Justice Keating appeared at the bar of the house and brought up a message from the House of Lords stating that their lordships had agreed to the Bill for an annuity to her Royal Highness the Princess Alice. CUSTOMS AND INLAND REVENUE BILL. •Sir W. HEATHCOTE, whose remarks had been inter rupted by the arrival of the judges, resumed his address, and proceeded to contend that there was nothing in the course adopted in the preparation of this bill which would bring them within the precedents to be used against the measure. So far as ho was concerned, he disclaimed any opposition on his part to the budget as a whole. Ile bad voted against it, bnt the house having decided by a majority to adopt it, he had only to consider the mode in which the proposals were to be submitted to Parliament, and upon this point he had no hesitation in saying that the plan adopted involved no violation of the piincip!es of the other house. (Hear, hear.) General PEEL said that a great part of the arguments used in the course of the debate had gone oR the supposi tion that the privileges of the House of Lords were about bbe invaded. In his opinion, however, the privileges of the House of Commons were far more in danger than those of the other house ; but that danger was from attacks from within, rather than from without. He thought the finan cial statement ought to be a fair, clear, and complete account between the two Governments. lie was anxious to learn what was the state of the accounts between the Indian and British Governments on account of the China war. The hon. gallant member also pointed out a discrepancy in the army votes, which would leave an excess of expenditure over the amount voted of £200,000, and asked explanations relative to the repayment of £44,000 made to the Indian Government. The CHANCEL LOB, of the EXCHEQUER said he had listened with some satisfaction to some of the statements of the right hon. gentleman, and he was glad to heat the ad mission that a surplus must be prospective, and must be as sumed for the guidance of the proceedings of the house. His right hon. friend likewise assented to the principle which it was his (the Chancellor of the Exchequer's) duty to lay down, and which, though it had been regarded as a novelty by some hon gentlemen, was a financial truism nevertheless, that it was the duty of the Chancellor of the Exchequer to make provision for the charges coming due on the year and no more —and he likewise observed that his right hon. friend did not dispute the application of the eurplue, as that had been settled by a vote of the holm, His right hon. friend then asked hira,some questions with respect to the military charge, and he would presently notice this in detail—he said, and he (the Chancellor of the Exchequer) agreed with him, that it Was an evil that we should have depending from year I to year unclosed accounts involving large sums of money be- I tween the Indian Government and this country; but the right hon. gentleman knew well that the reformation of a system of that kind could not be effected in a day, or even in a year. All he had to observe to the right hon. gentleman in mitigation of his apprehension s on this subject was that he had not stated that all those sums he had referred to were in the nature of unsettled claims ; and he had ven tured tontate else that so far att he believed there never was a tin e, or rarely a time, when the state o f accounts was more favourable to the British as compared with the In dian Government than at this moment. (Hear, hear.) H e did not think that any payment had been made to the Indian Government since last April, or any payment under the head of vote of credit for China. His impression, there fore, was that the payment to the Indian Government stood as it was—that was between £1,000,000 and £1 200 000 His, right hon. friend asked him further whethertlni:iapdayn: mreet had been made on account of the claims of the Cl overnraent previous to the late China war. There was a I.aeraent of about £140,000, speaking in round numbers, which was a claim provided for under the vote of credit in July last. Hi s r i g h t hon. friend also challenged him as to whether there was any provision made forexcess on the army votes, as he said there would be a large increase on certain votes. He (the Chancellor of the Exchequer) must leave that to be explained by tb.ewepresentative of the War De partment in that house; but he might make this remark, that his right hon. friend wail fall of apprehension that the provision for the public expenditure was very insufficient and would make an inroad on the surplus ; he, with 280 other gentlemen, voted for taking £285,000 more than the Government did from that surplus. (Hear.) That was a prOWfre34l which required some explanatio n on the part of his right hen . friend. ( H ui .) He (the Chancellor of the Exchequer) did nob propose: to enter at the present moment into these l rsonal matters that had occurred in the course of eneelebele. (Hear.) Some of them related to himself, which he thought it host to pass by; but there were others of dawn, 1 raCllll3 the impeachment of the right hon. gentle man Ile member for Bucks as to what he had stated about pubti e e.e. - penditure, and his former declarations respecting the t ,ea and, sugar duties, he placed in a different category. He thought these were fair matters for parliamentary at tack and controversy, and it was only his respect for the house which prevented him from entering at the present time into thee eie matters. He would, however, state his conviction that h e could perfectly prove to the house, from recorded facts are' I declarations, that what he stated in 1857 with respect to tai- a tea, and sugar duties was in entire consistency with hat ho had - said every year since, and now in the present y ear, (Ifear.) lie thought it his duty, however, to revert to when had been called the constitutional question in this de bate„ as he could got but feel that some special respozzsibi lity attached to him as finance minister for the plan of th Government now before the house, and the particular mode adopted in presenting it. They must recollect hoer the house stood in point of argument and in ; eint of order. His respected colleague the member for the University having voted with hon. gentlemen opposite on the subject of the financial plan, had to-night stated that in his opinion the mode of presenting the plan of finance as a single measure was sound and constitutional. (Hear, hear.) He had likewise authoritatively informed them, not only in his own name, but in that of their right hon. friend the member for Cambridge, whose soundness of judgment and calm mind must carry with them the greatest weight, as he was last year chairman of the committee which inves tigated this subject, and applied himself with the greatest diligence° the inquiry. (Hear, hear.) Lastly he (the Chan , cellor of the Exchequer) felt bound to say that in the form of the proceeding which they had chosen they were acting on the direct indication and under the authority of the right hon. gentleman himself the member for Bucks. He spoke now of matter of history ; and the Government were dis tinctly entitled entitled to and would claim the vote of the right hon. gentleman. (Hear.) But, nevertheless, it might be well to take more particular notice of the propositions which were so well laid down by the hon. and learned gen tleman the member for Sligo; and he must say he could not more conscientiously pay the hon. and learned gentle man a compliment, considering the barrenness of his mate rials, and how cleverly he handled his' scanty materials. The house would remember how when the Master of Ra venswood was in distress,Caleb Balderstone, having no pro visiene of any kind in the house, nevertheless undertook to furnish a first-rate banquet; and he (the Chancellor of the Exchequer) did not think that Caleb Balderstone, either in hearty good-will or success, surpassed the operations of the hon, and learned gentleman. (Hear, hear, and laughter.) Now, he (the Chancellor of the Exchequer) conceded to the hon. and learned gentleman one of his propositions, which was this,—that there never was an instance on record of a financial bill rejected by the Lords, and being afterwards sent up to them and passed in a bill of supply. (Hear, hear,) He made that concession freely and without re serve, and he expected from the hon. and learned gentle man a reciprocal concession that not only there could not be by any possibility such a case upon record, because there never was a case of rejection by the Lord s of a financial measure resembling the one before the house for the repeal of the paper duties. In the early history of this country " tackfug" was the constant practice, but that was when the Hoiese of Commons was weak and ill established, and they made use of tacking as an ingenious and legitimate weapon of se, f-defence, and it might be said that they still traced a faint relic of that state of things in the rule that prevailed, that when supply was demanded for her Majesty, or when it was proposed to go into com mittee of ways and means, any subjoct might legitimately be raised by any member of the house. The question was whether to join together proposals essentially homogeneous could be confounded with that which was essentiaitte dis tinguished from it by proposals which had no naiVal cohesion. (Hear, hear.) He would now look at the can's quoted by the hon. and learned gentleman. First, he quoted the case of 1676, prior to the Revolution, the effect of which was to decide against a combination of a grant of money with an appropriation act. He (the Chancellor of the Exchequer) held in his hand a list of 18 acts of Parlia ment, every one of which combined grants of money with appropriation of supply. One of these acts was the 10th of Anne, cap. 26, which commenced with granting augmen tations of duties ; then imposed new duties, and then made various rules for the regulation of trade, and ended with appropriating the whole of the money granted in that session. (Hear, hear.) The hon. and learned gentleman then dwelt largely on a case which he had not well examined—he meant the case of 1807, and he founded upon it another general principle, that a taxing bill could not be combined with a grant of Exchequer bills. The hon. and learned gentleman was in that case in the most com plete contradiction with the established practice of Parlia ment. The act of Geo. I. was one act for example to the contrary, in which a grant of money and a grant of taxes were combined with full authority to levy Exchequer bills. Lord Grenville having been invested with the office of checking the Treasury by the Exchequer, happened to be come head of the Board of Treasury ; great doubt arose whether he or any other person authorised by him could sign Exchequer bills which were issued by the authority of the Treasury' but not from the Exchequer. Well, that was evidently a question of constitutional law, but as distinct from a financial question as if it had been the trial of a',man in court of justice for forging Exchequer bills. That was the interpretation of the case of 1807. Then the bon. and learned gentleman endeavoured to establish a thied ciple, that in an act of supply the grant and the rep 'al of taxes could not be combined. But the hon. and learned gentleman was followed on his own side of the house by the hon.[member for Gloucestershire, who said he had ex amined the statutes for the first 20 years of this century, and though he (the Chancellor of the Exchequer) did not know why he had so restricted his inquiry, he nevertheless told the house teat he had found 18 or 20 cases in which taxes were granted and repealed in the same acts. No doubt there were many more such cases, and if the hon. and learned gentleman wished for particular cases they were easily found. (Hear, hear.) In fact, even more than was done by the bill before the house in the way of com bination was done by precedent. Thus, in 1695 there was a repeal of certain duties, and by the same act others were granted. In 1677 there was a grant of duties on servants and on glass ; and by that same act there was a repeal of another class of duties on glass, and a repeal also of duties on certain persons and bodies corporate. In 1798 Mr. Pitt repealed the assessed taxes, and imposed an in come tax, and both were incorporated in the same act ; and in 1807 there was the repeal by the same act of the duty on beer and ale in Ireland, and a grant of other duties. Ex amples of combination might be multiplied almost indefi nitely. He would take two cases separated by a period of 100 years to show the extent over which that power of com bination ranged, and he thought there was great force in the argument of the right hon, gentleman the member for the University that no precedents could be stronger than those drawn from the reign of Anne, when the controversy arising out of the Irish forfeited estates had raged so long between the houses, and the Lords had to adopt a standing order for the repression of the practice of tacking. There was a bill of supply, the 7th of Anne, cap. 8, which con tained these provisions. It began by continuing certain duties on wine, tobacco, and other articles, and then went on to repeal the duties on the export of copper and the ex port of brass wire. It then proceeded to authorise the issue of Exchequer bills, and it authorised £612,000 to be so issued. It next went on to deal with the funded debt, and authorised a loan of £645,000 to be contracted ; after which it proceeded in a great number of clauses to make a variety of other provisions, and it ended with appropriating all the money voted in that session of Parliament. There was in fact no form of practice in any manner material to the revenue or the contraction of debt that was not comprised within the limits of that act of Parliament, which was passed when the minds of men were still warm with the re membrance of the controversy which had prevailed between the two houses on the subject of tacking, and their respec tive jurisdictions in matters of finance. (Hear, bear.) Well, there was another case, and it was the only case with which he need trouble the house, and it was that to which reference was made by his right hon. friend the mem ber for Carlisle, because it was material` that the house should understand they were not going, as was said by one hon. member, to the extreme of their powers. They were stopping fairly within the precedents of former times, and the precedents of the good times of the ci nstitution. In 1808 an act was passed beginning with granting duties on malt, sugar, tobacco, snuff; pensions, and offices ; it went on to repeal certain other duties on offices and pensions, and then it re-granted for the year duties which it had previously repealed. Therefore it first of all combined grants, repeal, and granting anew, And that was not all it combined. It combined duties in different departments of state; it com bined sugar, which was a great duty of customs, with malt and tobacco, which were great duties of excise, tobacco' being then an excise duty ; and it combined indirect taxa tion through the customs with indirect taxation through the excise, with direct taxation in the taxes that it granted , on pensions and offices. So that there at any rate was posi tively eviey essential point included in the combination that was now presented, and they had already seen from prior instances that other points might likewise have been in cluded in entire consistency with precedent. But the right hon. gentleman proceeded to say it would have been a seri ous matter —not to have been desired—to have laid down any pr ece d ent in this case which might hereafter have seemed to wear th e c h arac t er o f i nnovat i on. A t the same time,while I thi n k t h e proof is complete and absolute— and do n o t think there is a single case mentioned by the hon.-a n d learned gentleman which amounts t ) more than this, which no one dispute s , th a t thi s course o f com bi nat i on has been variouslof the time — a t tl y iePusar,rsued, according to the circumstances rec edent, we m us t no time, e while we speak so much of ' n any degree flinch from consider ing what is the principle involved in the measure, because pre cedent is idle and unimportant unless there be a rational object in view. Now, in the first place,ber for Bucks I say that the r i g ht hon. gentleman opposit e , the member was irrefragibly sound when he st a t ed 'hat the method of ' presenting these propositions to the House of Commons in one and the same form, and bringing them at one and the same time under view, is distinctly for the advantage of the House of Commons. It is impossible to conceive a closer tie than that which unites these various items. They are the constituent members of one account, some standing on ono side of the account and others standing on the other. And I say, all the advantage to the Souse of Commons is shown fit)t, by the fact that last year it was found neces sary to combine in one motion, I mean in the motion of the hon. member for Somersetshire, things that were separate in the motion of £he Government ; and secondly, that this year, on th e contrary, it was open to hon. members t o wake their ch o i ce from the series of resolutions that were sub mittedae to th em, and to s at which th e select for themselves--a privilege to which they were entitled—to sel ec t f or themselves the' point Y chose to make their attack. It is only right that an opposition should have that advantage, and I believe that the mode pursued by the Government is the best mode of affording it, as the right hon. gentleman the member for Bucks most properly urged la.,t year that it would be. But undoubtedly there is more in the case than thi s . lam not about to enter into a discussion on tine na ture of the proceedings taken by the Ilosuse of Lords last year. I have heardmembers on the other aide of the house express their gratitude to the House of Lords for the course they adopted last year and really I must say that in this bad and imperfect world of; ours, gratitude, disinterested gra titude, is a sentiment which is at once so ennobling and so rare that I should be exceedingly loath to interfere with an y m b u u e t h . the I 4 excuse uti cs u of expression of it, or endeavour to check an effusion which wnoetotuhgehptritviomyself the Hoonus that Commons. The whole question, I think, is really this—it , irises out of the resolution passed last year on the mo . tion of my noble friend at the head of the Government, : e r g e e s s pe ni ct er s e o l ground, and on other grounds, for referring to the conduct of the House of Lords. I will do nothing except discuss, " That the right of granting aids and supplies is in the . Commons alone, as an essential part of the constitution." It is not only inhe ren t in them, but it inheres in them in such a manner that they cannot part with it. Then the resolution goes on to say—" And the limitation of all such grants as to manner, matter, measure and time is only in them." Now let us pay due attention to the words "as to time." - Public convenience, considera tions of expediency connected with trade and commerce, have led to the practice of permanent acts, and the doctrine laid down is this, that when once the house has committed itself by passing a permanent act it has entirely foregone and surrendered its power of limitation which it unani mously asserted last year—its power of limitation of aids and supplies to the crown in respect of time. We are told that it was then made a grant for ever; but it has alienated the privilege which by the prior part of that resolution we declared to inhere in us as an essential part of our consti tution. If that be so it is quite clear that the House of Commons stands seriously maimed, and the question arises whether it will not be necessary for the House of Commons to resume those powers, which they have declared belong to them, to resume them, of course, in a regular constitu tional manner—to resume the exercise of powers which they still possess, and which they declare to belong to them, is such a manner as to be in their own nature inalienable. Look at the question practically; the practical issue, if any issue is to be raised, of which as yet we are not informed, the practical question at issue is whether it is to remain in the hands of the House of Commons alone to adjust the income and charges of the year. (Hear, hear.) Now, sir, the doctrine upon which our financial proceedings till last year has been founded has been this—that that has been the exclusive right, and not the exclusive right alone, but the eaclusive duty, of the House of Commons. Is that charge capable of being divided between the two houses of the legislature ? Is it practicable; can it lead to anything but mischief and confusion ? I consent to look at it merely in the utilitarian point of view, and I make no appeal to the Houss of Commons and its public spirit, and its sense of its duty, to preserve the privileges it has inherited ; but is it practicable that you can bring two dis tinct bodies, each of them to exercise a separate judgment on the separate parts of the finances, and yet not lead to utter confusion and ,absurdity as the result. The conse quence would be, that whereas the finance of this country has, on the whole, been creditably distinguished from that of other countries, and in consequence the public credit of ~.he country had been raised to a height beyond that of any other country, you would see that all those benefits would be lost, and you would be compelled, in consequence of the surrender of your privileges and the abandonment of your duties—you would be compelled by the force of necessity to return to the ancient system which you had rashly given up. This is a point which, as it appears to me, is well worthy the consideration of the house. It is said on all hands that the House of Lords do not claim the power of amendment. That is not literally true. The House of Lords has never— and I must say they are perfectly right—declined to record as against themselves this limitation of their privileges, because cases might arise whereby the illegitimate incorpo ration of measures not financial into financial measures it might be wise and just for them to fall back on the whole breadth of their privileges. But it is true that the House of Lords has never abandoned by any corporate act of its own the right of making amendments on any financial mea sure. But though the House of Lords has not abandoned that right, speakers in the House of Lords, representatives of the House of Lords, have abandoned it, and they admit that the power of amending financial measures sent up to them from the House of Commons is a power which they do not hold. Now, in my opinion, the House of Commons would be much safer if the House of Lords did claim, and did exercise, a power of amendment, than it would be if without recognising that power of amendment it continued to send up its finances piecemeal. What is the case ? Suppose the House of Lords made an amendment in this bill for imposing duties, it comes back to us. We have the power of taking our own course. But if, on the con trary, we strip the bill into shreds and patches, and send it up to them in so many pieces, how do we then stand ? Not only do the House of Lords revise our legislation—that it could do by its power of amendment—but it revises %7ithout appeal, and it is not simply that our finance is not passed into law, but something else is passed, and we re main, so far as the bills are concerned, without remedy or redress. Therefore it seems to me this is a matter certainly of very great consequence, and one on which there ought to be no misunderstanding or doubt in the house. Do we or do we not claim the right and the duty of granting aids and supplies to the crown, or in modern language of adjusting incomo and ohargo, no pertaining taus. and to ais mcelagavoly? If we do claim it, I must say it seems to me that the course adopted by the Government, besides being by far the most convenient for freedom of discussion in the House of Com- mons, is likewise the most advantageous, and, let me add, the most re3pectfal and considerate mode we can adopt with regard to the House of Lords. But if we do claim that right, then I hape that some hon. gentleman will move to rescind the resolution we passed last year. Either of those courses is perfectly !egitimate and intelligible—l will not say consistent; and as the hon. member for Sligo was not a member of the house that passed the resolution, it would not bo inconsistent in him, and would be fair to move that the resolution be expunged from the journals of the house. But what I hope will not be done is to flinch from declaring clearly what is meant, and to take small objections to the plan of the Government and to speak in vague and general terms of the privileges of the ether house of Parliament, which I quite admit are as sacred and as important to the balance of the constitution as are our own privileges. I can draw no distinction between them in point of import ance. The power of this house must always remain greater than that of the House of Lords, but I believe that the in fringement of the privileges of the House of Lords or of its functions, would be as fatal to the constitution as would be the Loss of the privileges of this house itself. But do not let us resort to mere vague expressions. Let us know what we are about. As I understand this bill, it is a bill which, without being intended to revive even the re collection of any irritating question, is intended, and is also calculated to give to the House of Commons security in the possession of those powers which are absolutely ne cessary for the discharge of one of its primary duties. That I think is a fair description, at least so far as I am con cerned, of what is intended by this bill. Do let us have a similar description of what is intended by those who object. Do let us know if you say there is no distinction between matters of legislation and matters of finance, and that it is as much the duty of the House of Lords to revise and alter the financial legislation of the House of Commons, as it is to revise and alter any provision in any common Act of Parliament. That is the question. That would be a mode of procedure which would enable us in some degree to know what we are about, because I must observe that except ir y right hon. friend the member for Stroud, who certainly ex. cited, I believe, great sentiments of satisfaction in those who perhaps entertained the same opinions but who had not the courage to avow them—except my right hon. friend the member for Stroud there was not a man in the House of Commons who during the discussions of last year ques tioned the doctrine that it was the exclusive duty of the House of Commons to regulate the income and charges of the country, although they contended that the House of Lords exercised last year a right given to them by the con stitution. I se,t my right hon. friend the member for Stroud, This budget, unfortunately, finds no favour in his eyes. He says this budget gives a mortal stab to the con- stitution. Now I want to know what constitution it gives a mortal stab to. (Laughter.) In my opinion it gives no stab at all ; but, as far as it alters, it alters so as to revive and restore the good old constitution which took its root in Saxon times, which groaned under the Plantagenets, which endured the hard rule of the Tudors, which resisted the Stuarts, and which had come to maturity under the House of Brunswick. I think that constitution will be all the bet- ter for the operation. As to the constitution laid clown by my right hon. friend, under which there is to be a division of function and office between the House of Commons and the House of Lords with regard to fixing the income and charge of the country from year to year, both of them being equally responsible for it, which means that neither would be responsible, as far as that constitution is concerned, I cannot help saying that in my humble opinion the sooner it receives a mortal stab the better. (Cheers.) As to the form of the bill which has been presented by the Govern- ment to the house, I cannot conclude without expre-sing my full conviction that, both in numbers and in authority, it will be found to have the very general assent of the house, and I am convinced likewise that it is not less likely to receive the approval of the country. Nor do I speak simply of temporary or passing favour, but it will be ap proved by the deliberate judgment of the covntry, as being conducive to it:. best and permanent interesf§, and as being a proposal and a plan conceived in the true spirit of the con-, stitution. (Ch eers .) Mr. lIORSMAN said he did not attach to the right hon. gentleman who had just sat down any peculiar responsibilty with regard to the present measure. His position was doubt less different from that of the majority of the house, because ket year he had only accepted the resolutions upon the con dition of reserving to himself the right of future action. The question had been greatly narrowed by the right hon. gen tleman. It was not exactly a question of precedents, for precedents in abundance could be found in favour of the court zr both houses had pursued. It was not so much a question of past precedent as of present policy. Last year the Government had sent up their financial measures in two bills ; now they were sending them all up in one. There w as a motive for seeking for precedents. What was the necessity for it 2 It WAS to curtail and limit the functions of the Lords on questions of finance. Where did the necessity arise ? From the proceedings of last year. This now plan was being adopted because the finance s cheme of last year had miscarried iu the House of Lords, and the bill was designed as a censure upon the past proceedings of the WO SUN, - LONDON, IRIDAY EVENING, MAY - 17, 1861 Lords. (Hear, hear.) Had there been anything in the pro ceedings of the Lords to justify this condemnation? He adhered to the opinions which last year he had expressed on that point. Any attempt to disarrange the relationship which existed between the three states of the realm required the greatest care and thought. These states had formed the mode of Government in England for centuries. The hon. member for Birmingham would tell the house of the baneful and blighting effect of an exclusive aristocracy, but all history served to show that Government by means of a single Chamber was always prone to act a tyrannical part. (Cheers from the Conservatives.) Such a Chamber had never been able to last long, because it broke through all restraint. All forms, proceedings, and precedents were swept away by the exciting passions and interests of the day. In the language he had addressed to the house last year, he had not spoken contemptuously of the Commons; he had simply expressed his approval of the wholesome check fur . nished by the other branch of the Legislature. The House of Lords was an essential element in the Constitution, and their authority was not likely to be denied. Destroy the second chamber and there must result either an absolute monarchy or a republic. The moment it was established that a decree of the Commons was final, then a democratic power in the most absolute sense would have then been esta • blished. It was said that the practice of old times was that the Commons had the whole and sole control of taxation ; but historically that was not correct; for all that the Com mons in old times had maintained as their right was to tax themselves. Constitutionally the Lords possessed a suspen sive power, and he had never claimed for them a higher power. He had never expressed on any measure the opinion that the Lords should be the justices of the Commons in matters of finance, but he had claimed for the assembly the right on great occasions, by interposing delay, of giving fur ther time for full deliberation. As regarded what happened last year, the suspensive power of the House of Lords was unquestionably well employed, and it was for the House of Commons to acknowledge the benefit which had accrued to the country from their having had an inde pendent Chamber, which did what everybody since had ac knowledged was perfectly right. He could not agree with the argument of the right hon. member for Carlisle, which simply amounted to an acknowledgment of a right, an ad mission that the right was properly exercised, and a state ment that he was prepared to take steps to prevent that right ever again being constitutional. His statement simply was that the conduct of the House of Lords was right, pro pm- and eonaitutional ; and from that he drew the conclu sion—ergo, he must prevent them ever acting again in a similar manner. That was a conclusion which he himself could not arrive at, nor could he admit that the resolutions of late years established any proposition. Those resolutions certainly embodied the principle that the veto of the House of Lords was one not often to be used, but never in any way attempted to d any the legality of the course taken last year by the House of Lords. The present bill took away all the power which the constitution and unvaried practice had established in the House of Lords. If any doubt existed on the subject, the statement of the First Minister of the Crown would settle the question; and, on looking over the speech of the noble lord, he found that he laid down the principle that to take from the Lords the power of assent would require an act of Parliament to which they would have to be a party, or else resort to a revolutionary move ment, which would subvert the existing constitution. The noble lord had on subsequent occasions also expressed a strong and very decided opinion against interfering with the undoubted constitutional authority of the House of Lords. It was difficult, if not impossible, to recognise any identity between the resolutions proposed by the noble lord on a former occasion and the course now proposed. He admitted that, as regarded the Chancellor of the Exche quer, and the noble lord the member for London, their con duct on this question had been honourable and out spoken; but the contest which they had waged had been not a very glorious one, for any victory gained had been only a victory over a colleague. It had been made matter of complaint that no issue had been joined on the question before the house, but after the statement made on a pre vious occasion by the noble lord at the head of the Govern ment, such a step appeared unnecessary. If the repeal of the paper duty was the sole thing at issue, why not send up a bill to the Lords simply embodying the repeal? (Hear.) The fact was that the present proposal was, to a certain extent, a very valiant one, but it might end in defeat, and there then would be the humiliation that so much had been said about it, and that appeared to be so much dreaded. It was said, and he could not controvert the statement, that the Commons were angry with the House of Lords because last year they had shown more sense than themselves— (hear)—but it might happen that the course now proposed, instead of being a settlement of the question, might only lead to the starting of a new question altogether. There might be found in the House of Lords a spirit of wisdom and resolution equal to the emergency they were forcing upon them. It was possible that the Lords might contrive some mode of accepting their finance and of rejecting their affront. In what situation would the house then be placed ? If they accepted the mode which the Lords might suggest, they must be humiliated, but if they did not accept it, then a dissolution might be the result. At that moment the great Liberal party did not stand high—very high—in the country, but the result might be a House of Commons as unlike the present as possible. (Hoar.) lie advised his &touts not LO follow the raoh advice of the hos, Istawn the member for Carlisle. The right hon. baronet forgot that the cry of " Up with the Commons" could only mean in this case " up with a body that was divided against itself." (Hear.) The name of the Chancellor of the Exchequer would in such a contest be received in many districts with acclamations. The name of the hon. member for Birming ham would be hailed by his friends; but the name of the noble lord the member for Tiverton would never be heard —it would be rejected, his followers would be dispersed, and his opponents would be enthroned in power. (Hear.) Mr. PULLER said that the impression which the speech of the hon. and learned member for Stroud had left upon his mind was, that there were three parties to this question —the noble lord the member for Tiverton, the House of Lords, and the country at large. Of those three the country had, he thought, the most reason to complain. The aim of the hon. and learned gentleman seemed to be to stir up the Lords to reject this bill. (Hear, hear.) In his zeal, the hon. and learned gentleman had claimed privileges for the Lords which they had never claimed for themselves. He believed that the wisest and ablest members of the House of Lords would refuse to go along ith the hon. member in the pro positions which he had advanced. Lord Derby had admitted that to the House of Commons belonged the originating and even the regulating matters of finance. This has long been acknowledged to be the right of the Commons. It had been acknowledged by the I ords, first by sending back bills of supply to this house to be presented to her Majesty at the prorogation, instead of keeping them back to be presented by their own messengers. He acquitted the Lords of any intention of encroaching on the privileges of this house for the sake of so doing, but in the result the effect had been that these privileges had been encroached upon. The House of Commons had taken its course on the financial informa tion which was never communicated to the House of Lords. They had voted an income tax, which they considered suffl cient for the wants of the year, and that was agreed to by the Lords. But when the Commons passed the bill for the repeal of the paper duty, the Lords rejected it on pounds which had already been raised in this house, and thus imposed on the country taxation to the amount of a million and a half more than had been authorised by the Commons. What then became of the privilege of the Commons ? Why, the Crown had received that amount of supply which this house never granted. It was said that the bill which the Lords rejected was not a wise or prudent measure, but that was not the ques tion. The question was not what was right to be done, but which House of Parliament was to do it. But the Commons had themselves to blame. The Lords would be justified iu saying to them, if you considered these mea sures to be so intimately connected, why did you not send them to us in one bill, that we might have considered them together ? Then, if we thought that any change ought to be made, we should send the bill back to you, and you might consider whether you would adopt it in its muti lated form, or make ether aseangemer is for the finances of the year. As it was, they had accepted the Income•tax— indeed they could do nothing else—but they rejected the Paper duty. Now, the question was, whether the Com mons were to place the Lords in that unfair position again, or adopt the suggestion of the chairman of the Committee of Precedents and approved of by the leader of the Oppo sition (Mr. Disraeli), which, so far from insulting the House of Lords, or trenching on their privileges, was the fairest course towards the Lords themselves. It was cer tainly incumbent on the Commons to take such measures as would secure that the Budget should Lot b 3 taxed by the House of Lords without the consent of the House. Mr. NEWDEGATE said he was much impressed with the magnitude of the question, and was very anxious that the House should see the extent of the privilege they were claiming, which was that this house might be at liberty to commit such follies as they pleased, but must not be corrected by the House of Lords. No member was less willing than he was to sac] ifice the privileges of that House, but he said that, to give taxes the force of law, it was essential to have the real consent of both houses, and not to leave merely a form of consent which would be a farce. The resolutions recommending the adoption of this course were distinctly rejected by the committee at the suggestion of Sir James Graham, who now said he only made that proposal for the sake of unanimity. How strong then must have been the difference of opinion in that committee. There was nothing in the resolutions to sanction the course taken. The first resolution would never have been carried had it Rot been accompanied by the others, but it was now pro posed to act on the first only ; paying no attentior. to the others which recognise the exceptional power of the Lords. The effect of the proceeding they were now about to adept would be not only to fetter the discretion of the House of Lords, but would grievously contract the action of this House. Tho hon. member for Birmingham had said this was his Budget, but c had the conduct of that hon. member been such with respect to either House of Parliament as to entitle him to the confidence of the House of Commorts. His expressions with respect to the House at Lords were fullyin keeping with the plan now proposed for depriving that House of its rights and privileges. The repeal of the paper duty would be made at the instigation of an organi sation of which the hon. member for 13irmin,gham was one of the heads, and for the benefit of its leaders. As an in depe4deut member he warned the Rouse against the course they were pursuing with respect to the system of tacking bills. (Hear, hear.) The honourable member referred to some of the speeches of tb.e honourable member for Birmingham in which he expressed very strong opinions respecting the constitution of the House of Lords and the House of Commons, and concluded by saying that when the power of the Crown was vested in a majority of the House of Commons, and when that majority was governed by an organisation outside Parliament, there was grave danger to the liberty and independence of the repre sentatives of the people. Mr. MELLOR contended against the description given by the hon. member for Stroud (Mr. Horsman), that the House of Lords was either a court of review, or that it had any suspensive right with respect to the finance mea sures of the House of Commons. He also combated the argument of Mr. Horsman, that the resolutions agreed to by the House last Session w ere t o b e i n t erpre t e d b y the right of the noble lord at the head of the Govern ment, rather than by the clear and intelligible mean ing which was conveyed upon the face of them. After the resolutions of last year had been passed, the right hon. gentleman the member for Buckinghamshire expressed his approval of the third one in particular, which claimed a right of control for the House of Commons over financial matters, and hoped it would be adopted by the house. He submitted that the Government were right in embodying their financial scheme in one bill. (Hear, hear.) Mr. MALINS did not think there was any necessity for the House of Commons to approach the House of Lords in anything like a penitential mood. No doubt the right of gaanting aid and supplies to the Crown was in the House of Commons ; but now it was avowed by the Chancellor of the Exchequer that any Constitution which oshould enable the Lords to have any voice on the subject was a Constitution which could not too speedily receive a stab. If that were true, then the sooner the Commons ceased to send money bills to the Lords the better. They knew not how long the present Constitution of the Commons might be preserved; and if that house should happen to become of a very democratic cha ' ratter, and direct taxation alone was to prevail, what would be the state of the kingdom if the Lords were then to have no voice. (Hear, hear.) He admitted that this was not a tack ing bill in the common sense of the word, but then it intro duced clauses upon which the Lords had no power to vote. In the - year 1830 an act was passed limited solely to the rereal of the leather duties, and that was framed in order to give the House of Lords the full power that the Constitution gave them of giving a direct negative. In 1845, when the glass duty was repealed, a bill of supply was also granted, giving certain duties on glass, and, in fact, during the last fifty years there had existed a practice of embodying all re peals of duties in separate bills. In the last year, when the question of the repeal of the paper duty came forward, it came forward is a way which gave the House of Lords the power of exercising their undeniable privilege. The noble lord at the head of the Government had always recognised the right ofthe House of Lords to give expression to their views, even on the subject of a money bill, and he had, in the resolutions which he had proposed, thoroughly admit ted the power of rejection of the House of Lords. If, then, the House of Lords last year only exercised their constitu tional right, why should any attempt be made to deprive them of the opportunity of doing the same this year. He considered the repeal of the paper duty an unwise measure; but in the vote oa the question he thought that the reten • tion of the paper duty mu=t be an embarrassment to any Government; and he could only say, with regard to the present bill, that the second reading would be a matter of course ; but he biped that hereafter the Government would agree to divide the bill. (Hear, hear.) Mr. WHALLEY supported the second reading of the bill. Sir S. NORTHCOTE said that if he did not touch upon the financial questions involved in the Budget, it was not because he thought the subject exhausted, but because he thought the desire of the house was to confine itself to the form of the bill before them. He was quite prepared so far as he was concerned, that he did not intend to dis pute the right or wisdom of the house to take the course proposal by combining in one bill its financial measures. (Hear, hear.) He did not agree with those who spoke of the danger of a collision with the other house on this sub ject. He no more believed in that danger than Caleb Balderstone did in the reality of the thunder storm which he pretended had occurred. He reminded the house that they were about to vote annually £20,000,000 of their taxes. The right hon. bart., the member for Car lisle, said that formerly the practice was to include such rest lutionr as those now before the house in one bill. That might be true. But what he wished to speak on at present was the question of voting from year to year a large por tion of the taxation of the country. That was an important change. The House of Lords would have the same right to deal with the question, whether it was sent up to them in one bill or in one or two bills rolled up together. (Hear.) The real question was, that they were making a large amount of their taxation dependent on the annual vote of that hcuse. He knew not how far the commercial and financial policy of the Government was identical with the views of the hon. member for Birmingham. He would, however, remind them thatabout a year and a-half ago the hon. member for Birmingham proposed to sweep away all the taxes they no w proposed to vote, and to substitute a tax on realised property, including trade. (Hear, hear.) Mr. lortuurr—i beg to explain. I assure the hon. member that I never said anything of tho kind; and I should never assent to a proposition so utjust. Sir S. NORTHCOTE was very glad to be corrected. He had no desire to misrepresent the hon. gentleman. At all events, it was the hon. gentleman's intention to lay a single tax on realised property—a tax in some way distin guishett from the income-tax—which he had condemned in as strong terms as any member of this house. Mr. Bright also proposed to substitute for the tea and sugar duties, and for the present income-tax, a tax of Bs. on every £lOO of property. He (Sir S. Northcote) wished to know whether that was a policy which gentlemen of the Whig party were willing to adopt. If so, he could understand their taking this course, but if they were not prepared to go so far, he would advise them to pause, and consider what would be the effect of making all these taxes equal. The Chancellor of the Exchequer talked as if he were standing in the old paths, and they were the rash innovators. He said that this was a measure in accordance with the policy of Sir Robert Peel, and ~ f his own (Mr. Gladstone's) budget of 1853. In both there were remissions of duty, that was the one point of resemblance, but Sir R. Peel, and also Mr. Gladstone, in 18.53, laid the taxation down for a period of years, whereas in the present budget provision was not made even for a second year. In two years' time they would still be in the position that they must renew the whole of the existing taxation, even without any payment of debt, and if they wished to pay off any part of their debt new taxes must be imposed. There was a very high expenditure to be met by taxation, and, of course, it ought to be by that mode of taiation which was the least oppressive and the fairest. Would any one contend that the present income tax answered those conditions ? (Hear, hear.) The impo sition of the income-tax year by year would have the effect of constantly provoking class feelings, and the question would arise every year with augmented bitterness, of whe ther the income-tax was to be 9d. or 10d., &c. Mr. J. LOCKE complained of the conduct of the Opposi tion, which, after so many nights' debate, had now an nounced, by the hon. baronet, that they really did not care a straw whether one bill or three bills were sent up to the House of Lords. So far as the paper duty was concerned, the whole country was in favour of its repeal. (Cries of "No, no.") It was all very well for hon. gentlemen to cry S C , no," but he contended that what he said wascorrect. Mr. W. DUNC OM BE said the question before the house might be divided into two parts—the financial and the con stitutional. The country, in his opinion, had a right to feel grievously disappointed at the course the Chancellor of the Exchequer had pursued. Instead of repealing the paper duty, he ought to have proposed a further reduction in the income-tax, and a diminution of the tea duty, a proposition which would have met with the general concurrence of the house. Lord PALMERSTON.—An old friend of mine used to say when a question was put to him, " I should like to hear it argued." A very prudent maxim that was, and undoubt edly the course of this debate shows the advantage of a full discussion. (Hear.) We began these debates with great doubts expressed whether there was any surplus at all. The statement of my right hon. friend was disputed, his results denied, and the whole foundation of his scheme was said to be fallacious. After a certain amount of discussion it was generally admitted that there was a surplus. (Oh 1 and hear.) That admission was made not merely in words but by a motion, because those who began by disputing the existence of a surplus endesi by proposing a greater reduc tion of taxation, which would have absorbed a portion of that surplus. (Hear.) That was a step in the progress. (Hear.) Then arose the question as between tea and paper, and great objection was raised, which was largely and gene rally expressed, to the repeal of the paper duty ; but discus.. sion had its effect, and now there is no dispute as to whe ther the paper duty should or should not be repealed. (Hear.) There was step the second very satisfactorily established. (Hear, hear.) 'I hen arose the graver question—the question between the two Houses of Parliament. Serious objections were urged to the method proposed by my right hon. friend of putting all his financial arrangements into one bill, which was said to b an outrage on the House of Lords. That was a subject for discussion during a great many hours, but fortunately we have this very evening heard, on very competent authority, thht that is a matter of no im portance. The hon. baronet the member for Stamford told us that the result of the discussion is that it is perfectly im materir.:l whether the financial propositions go up to the other house in one, two, three, or four bills—he does not care sixpence how it's settled. (Laughter.) Here we have the surplus established, an entire acquiescence in the selec tion of the Paper Duty, and in the method and arrange•• went of the matters to be sent up t ) the other house. (Hear, hear.) And then when—good, simple-minded people—we were looking upon the NI hole matter as disposed of, up starts another question, entirely unconnected with any of the former questions,—whether taxes shall be voted annually, or made permanent. That is a new subject, and I dare say that when you, Sir, put the question, we shall have a motion for adjournment in order that it may be fully discussed. (1.3 laugh.) I can only recommend honourable members to turn their minds to it in the course of the Whitsuntide holydays, so that they may be fully prepared to enter into a, formal discussion of it. (Laughter.) Being so far agreed, I was in hopes that the termination of these discussions might be peaceful and satis • factory; but up get the right hon. member for Stroud, and throws the torch of discord into our hitherto comparatively peaceable debates. My right hon. friend wants to set every body by the ears. (Laughter.) First of all he endeavours to sow dissension in the Cabinet, then he endeavours to set the two houses in collision, and, not content with that, he car ries his disturbing intentions so far as to try to get up a war between members of the House of Commons and their constituents. I beg to assure him that he will entirely fail in his first object. (Cheers.) He will not succeed by any taunts of his in creating dissensions in the Cabinet. (Hear.) With regard to his second object I am convinced he will be equally unsuccessful, as we have heard to night from persons com petent to speak, in creating hostility between the two houses. That is a very satisfactory consolation. With regard to hos tility between members and their constituents—(laughter)— ,speaking generally for the house as a body, I am equally convinced that his endeavour will fail ; but as far as his assertions may be founded on any local knowledge which he may possess u ith regard to any particular electoral body of course I cannot pretend to give an opinion. I refer that entirely to him. (Loud laughter.) I will only say that it is an established maxim " Blessed are the peacemakers ; " but what may be the fate of those who are sowers of dis sension, instigators of discord, and promoters of quarels, is not so clearly defined. (Laughter.) Whatever it may be, I am afraid my right hon. friend is determined to share in it. (Loud laughter.) Mr. DISRAELI—The agreeable but unexpected obser vations of the noble lord appear to me to be, generally speak ing, founded on an entire misconception of what has taken place during the last week. (Hear.) The first statement of the noble lord was that we now admit a surplus, which we formerly denied. I think the noble lord will find on re flection that there is no foundation whatever for that state ment. (Oh, and cheers.) What has most struck me in the course of these discussions has been the strength of convic tion manifested by hon. gentlemen opposite, who, however, have prudently abstained from rising and expressing it in debate. (A. laugh.) Some hon. members have groaned at and dissented from the statement I have just made. All have admitted—the Chancellor of the Exchequer himself has admitted—an enormous deficiency for the year ; all have admitted—it cannot be denied—that we have been obliged to meet that deficiency by renewing taxes, mainly war taxes, to a vast amount ; and the simple question before us was whether we should renew those taxes to an amount that would satisfy the demands of the service, or whether we should renew them to an amount that would create an arti fic'al surplus. That is the whole situation. If you had followed what I believe to be a prudent course, you would have lightened the burdens of the people to the largest ex tent of your power, and you would have renewed the war taxes only to the amount that was necessary for the public service. (Cheers.) But when you refused to adopt that policy, when you chose to follow a caprice of finance, and to renew the war taxes to an amount that gave you a surplus of £2,000,000 above the demands of the public service, then we said, "Do with the whole of that what you proposed to do with a half—namely, apportion it to the reduction of the war taxes which you are renewing." You agreed with us as far as the income tax is concerned, and we proposed that the same process should be applied to the war tax on tea. That is the whole question. It may not have been understood at one time by the house, though it is now, but it has always been thoroughly understood by the country. You have created an artificial surplus, in order that you might perpetrate a financial caprice. (Cheers.) 'We tried to bring you into a more healthy and advantageous position. Yet you seem proud of the triumph which you have ac complished I What is that triumph ? In a house of more than 600 members, by a bare majority, a majority of 18, a majority in a certain degree supplied by members who sit habitually opposite to you, and who voted for your ram sure, not because they approved your policy, but because they shrink from the responsibility of disturbing your Go vernment—you have to this moment, and only to this mo ment, succeeded in the first step of carrying your policy into effect. (Cheers.) What is the situation of the noble lord—of this wise and experienced Minister ?He is forcing by a bare majority, not furnished by his legitimate sup porters—(cries of " No," and cheers)—a financial policy upon the country through this house, and telling you at the same time that that policy shall not be submitted to the consideration of the other house of Parlia ment. I say the noble lord, in thus forcing a finan cial policy upon the country by a bare and illegiti mate majority, avowedly furnished by ambiguous means, is straining the Constitution. (" Oh," and cheers.) Then we are told that we have shifted our ground—that we have brought forward a great constitutional question, and shrink from the issue which we ourselves selected. (Cheers from the Ministerial benches.) Who said so ? I think it was the hon. and learned gentleman who represents the borough of Southwark. He has favoured us with a speech of choice elo quence, in which he imputed motives pretty freely, and commented up on our conduct in that grotesque style which I have no doubt suits the hustings he has just left. (Laugh ter.) The hon. and learned gentleman says I set up my hon. friend the member for Stamford as a kite in order to dis cover the temper of the house. Why does he say so ? Oh, precious reason ? He is well acquainted with my hon. friend; he has observed his conduct, and he remembers his speech on the Reform Bill of 1858. He says he listened with in tone interest to my hon. friend when to. spoke oa that oc casion, and more than six times he believed he was going to say I was about to accept the resolutions proposed by the noble lord the member for London. Six times did he believe that ? I should rather have thought he believed that the policy recommended to us at that time would be accepted and acted upon by the noble lord himself. (Cheers.) That, I think, would have been a little more satisfactory to the electors of Southwark than the precious story aoout kites we have heard to-night—a story suggestive of considerations and circumstances which should have restrained the too exuberant zeal, and taught some discretion to the tongue of the hon. and learned gentleman. The Reform Bit' of 1858, coupled with what has since occurred, was not exactly the subject which an ardent and prudent supporter of the pre • sent Ministry would have chosen as an instrument of attack against us for our conduct in the matter of the budget. (Cheers) But what is this great constitutional ques tion? It is much simpler than we at first supposed, though its simplicity cannot be surprising to those who were members of the committee last year, iucluding the noble lord himself. The fact is, I believe, there is no right of the Commons which, if you search their journals, you cannot prove. On the other hand, there is no right of the Lords which, if you search their journals, you cannot also prove. That is the whole state of the case as regards precedents. It is the natural consequence of dealing with an ancient Constitution that has gradually risen and gra dually adapted itself to the wants and necessities of a great people. (Hear, hear.) You have in the archives of the Lords the haughty records of restriction : you have in the journals of the Commons the rude annals of privilege In either mighty code you will find sufficient authority for what a factious Minister or an excited Parliament may think proper to undertake. We flattered ourselves, however, that we had not to deal with a factious Minister, but with a man who has had great experience of public affairs, and who, by his temperate conduct and moderate counsels, bas gene rally been acceptable to Parliament. (Hear.) What was the conduct of the noble lord when he had to do that which he did honestly, plainly, directly, and skilfully last year—when he had to accommodate modern circumstances to ancient pre cedents ? He gave us temperate counsels, and if the resolu tions passed last year had been followed in their spirit by the House of Commons—if they had been followed in the spirit which was expressed in the speech of the noble lord when he introduced them—a speech which was accepted by the house as an explanation of their meaning—there could have been no misunderstanding on the subject. I believe, in deed, that at the beginning of the session it had never en tered into the mind of the noble lord that there could be any misunderstanding on the subject. (Hear, hear.) But then another influence began, as last session, to appear and to give a colour to public events and the conduct of Minis ters ; and what we complain of is that the policy which arose from this second and sinister influence is not one that is dictated by high considerations of State, by a due regard to the spirit of our constitution, or by a due re spect for the privileges of the other House of Parliament, but has arisen from accidents, from circumstances, from private understandings, and from private pique. (Cheers.) Hence the difficult and• dangerous position in which this house now finds itself placed —a position far beyond consis derations of party, far beyond the mere interests of indivi dual members—a position which may result in the most ruinous consequences to the constitution of the country. We are, in consequence of these occult influences, brought to this condition —that we are straining the constitution, we are unnecessarily and wantonly bringing into possible col lision the privileges and powers of co-ordinate branches of the Legislature. Under what circumstances are we acting thus ? When, in the very House of Parliament which, ac cording to the view now advocated by the noble lord, can alone benefit by that policy, parties are evenly balanced, or rather a bare majority is obtained by the Government by means the most factitious. That is my answer to the noble lord. I say, as I said last year, that to object to the mere form in which a budget is produced would be to offer an objection which I admit is not technically valid. But why did you not bring forward your measure last year in the form which you now prefer ? I should have been glad to see the Chancellor of the Exchequer's scheme of last year in one measure. But if it was not expedient last year to in clude all your measure in one bill, why, I would ask, is it necessary now ? In order to find a reason for this change we must look back and see what has occurred in the interval. Taking that retrospective glancosve are led to perceive that it is to the conduct of the House of Lords that this course of procedure is advisable. Well, and what has been that conduct ? It is conduct which has been pronounced by tbP, right hon. baronet the member for Carlisle—a great autho rity —as being perfectly legal and constitutional. It is not, therefore, because of its illegality or unconstitutional character that you object to the step which the House of Lords took last year. What, let me ask, was the policy of that step P The House of Lords were of opinion that, as the finan cial scheme of the Government was sent up to them, there would, if they sanctioned it, be a deficit for the year which has just terminated, and therefore they used their legal right —aright not contested in this house by any one but the Chan cellor of the Exchequer, I believe—and prevented a branch of pet ,anent revenue from being abolished. (Hear, hear.) What has been the resul , ? You had at the expiration of the last thattuei(tl year a deficit pt' X 2,500,000, whielA deficit ► would have amounted to C 3,500,000 had the House of Lords not pursued the course to which lam adverting. (Hear.) It appears that the conduct of the house in this respect was legal, constitutional, politic, and most advantageous to the public interest. What then is the ground—the real ground —on which we are called on to adopt a course quite the con trary of that which we took last year ? It must be this or it is nothing—that it is sought to deprive the other House of Parliament of the exercise of a power which you admit was legally and constitutionally exercised, and which the nation has ratified as sound and politic. (Hear, hear.) That is the real position in which this question stands. There is no meaning in language if the noble lord at the head of the Go vernment contemplated, when he was introducing his resolu tions on the subject last year, the course which he now ad vises us to pursue. (Hear, hear.) And what does the noble lord • gain by taking this course ? As the chief Minister of this country he has been, if not supported by an enthusiastic majority, at all events with such a measure of forbearance on the part of this house that he cannot say he has been seriously inconvenienced previous to these discussions on any point during the whole of the session. What is his posi tion now ? He has given his adhesion to a policy which no body but the few who were in the secret could have expected he would sanction, inasmuch as it is a pplicy totally opposed to the sentiments expressed in the speech to which I have already alluded—(hear, hear)—and in which the noble lord placed an interpretation on the resolutions which he moved on the occasion, which was adopted by this house in faith and trust that it was an interpretation by which the noble lord was prepared to abide. (Hear, hear.) The noble lord now finds himself in a House of Commons in whickhis authority is severely criticised, and in which, when a divi sion on an important subject is called for, putting that au thority to the test, he escapes only by a bare majority, and that, too, a majority of a very ambiguous character. (Hear.) It has not, therefore, I say, been on the part of the noble lord a mere movement so far as Parliament is concerned unnecessarily to raise this conflict, and when we are told that " blessed is the peacemaker," and listen to the elabo rate reproof which the noble lord addressed to a right hon. gentleman whose only fault was that he gave a most logical answer to the Chancellor of the Exchequer and other hon. gentlemen who preceded him on this question, I would remind the noble lord that he is the man who has raised unnecessary discord in the House of Commons ; that he is the man who has most unnecessarily provoked dissen sions in the house, and has caused his authority to be questioned where before it was not challenged. (Hear, hear.) I may say, speaking for gentlemen on this side of the house, that we are not at all afraid of the position in which this question is placed. We entirely repudiate the accusation that we provoke unnecessary debate. The con fidence which I repose in public opinion leads me to feel assured that the general sentiment prevailing throughout the country is that this was a subject which required to be discussed ; that, under all the circumstances of the case, deliberation was desirable, but that the peculiar position in which we now find ourselves when a Minister has introduced a strange, unusual, I may say even an unprecedented course of procedure, which entirety deprives the other House of Parliament of its power of revision, rendered it expedient that we should act with double deliberation, and deal with the utmost caution with the policy of the Government in this. particular instance. That policy I look upon as being extremely unwise. I will not say it was mean in device and malignant in conception (cries of " Oh, oh," and cheers) —I will not say that ; but when this is recommended to our notice as a policy of conciliation, I may be disposed ;to. retort—anything. (A laugh.) But we aro asked why, if we disapprove the course which Ministers have taken, we do not oppose the second reading of the Bill under our consideration? My answer is, that we have. already given our assent to the provision respecting the Income-tax, which constitutes a principal part of the mea— sure, and that as when the resolutions relating to the paper duty were passed we reserved to ourselves the right to take with reference to all the other subjects involved in the measure whatever course we might deem expedient on. the future stages of these proposals, so now we reserve to ourselves a similar right. That is a course perfectly Par liamentary, although I should not be astonished to find that a member of the Government may hereafter rise in his. place and pronounce it to be unconstitutional, inasmuch as we heard the Chancellor of the Exchequer declare that when resolutions affecting a duty passed, the House of Commons was to some extent precluded from considering the propriety of those resolutions on subsequent occasions.. Notwithstanding that declaration, however, we shall avail ourselves of our constitutional right, and when proper opportunity offers we shall hold ourselves free to take into consideration the policy involved in this bill, which we believe to be a policy dangerous to the country. I make this statement because the noble lord at the head of the Government the other night, in one of those gay assump tions in which he is so happy—(a laugh)—proved to his own satisfaction, and I trust his slumbers were in conse quence rosy— (laughter)—that we had given in our adhe sion to every portion of the scheme of the Chancellor of the Exchequer. I do not wish the noble lord to remain any longer under that delusion. We at first agreed to the passing of the resolutions, in order that the bill founded upon them might be breught in, reserving to ourselves the right —upon the OCCaitioa which might seem to us proper and fitting, and in the man ner which we might deem the most judicious, the most conducive to the public interest, and the best calculated to attain the end which we desired—to challenge a policy which, speaking generally, we entirely disapprove, and we believe finds little favour among the people of England. (Cheers.) The bill was then read a second time. The Landed Property Improvement (Ireland) Bill, the Guildford Hospital Bill, and the Cork Infirmary Bill passed through committee. The Excise and Stamps Bill and the Volunteers Tolls Exemption (No. 2) Bill were read a second time. The report on the Public Offices Extension (Revenues of India) Bill was agreed to. The Combination of Parishes Dissolution (Scotland) Bill was read a third time and passed. A bill to amend the law relating to the fisheries of salmon and trout in England, and .a bill to facilitate the laying down of rails in the highways and streets of England were brought in and read a first time. The house adjourned at 20 minutes to 1 o'clock. RICHMOND PARK.--A return presented to Par liament shows that 1,378 acres of Richmond Park, seven twelfths of the whole, have been drained, and the average cost has been £6 7s. 4d. per acre. [ADVERTISEMENT],—It is ever a pleasing duty of a journalist to introduce to his readers some new discovery calculated to benefit that vast portion of our fellow-crea tures, which has the strongest claims upon our sympathies. It is with this feeling that we call the attention of invalids to the following extracts from Du Barry's interesting report of Cures without medicine by Du Barry's Revalenta Arabica Food. Cure No. 52 , 4 22.—Bridgehouse, Frimley Surrey, 3d April 1854. I have suffered these 33 years con tinually from diseased lungs, spitting of blood, liver de rangement, deafness, singing in the ears, constipation, de bility, shortness of breath and cough, which have been re moved by your Revalenta Arabica. My lungs, liver, sto mach, head, and ears, ale all right, my hearing perfect, and my recovery is a marvel to all my acquaintances. James Roberts. Cure No. 36,418. Rev. Dr. Minster of cramps, spasms, and daily vomitings. Avoid Pills and Medicines : they invariably aggravate and perpetuate diseases ; their annoyance, disappointment, and expense may be avo id e d b y using Du Barry's Food which, at a few pence per day, saves 5C times its cost in other remedies, removing effectually, w.thout purging, constipation,. indigestion (dyspepsia) nervous, bilious and liver complaints and all their consequences. Certificate No. 36,418. We find it the safest remedy. Andrew Ure, MD., F.R.S., Dr Harvey, Dr. Wurzer, Dr. Shorland, Dr. Campell. Let invalids avoid the fearful dangers of spu rious and injurious imitations offered under a variety of false pretences. Nevill's imitations are prohibited by the high Court of Chancery under a penalty of £5,000 against Alfred Hooper Nevill and his agents; and the pretenoes that Nevill has a patent for Arabica Food and that Du Barry's are connected with such patent are utterly fake. No canister is genuine without the name Barry Du Barry and Co., 77, Regent-street, in full, onthe seal and wrapper. Shopkeepers who attempt imposition in one article must, expect to be distrusted in all others. Packed in tins 11b. 2s. 9d.; 21b. 4s. 61. ; 51b. lls.; 121 b. 225. ; 241 b. 40 8. The 121 b. and 241 b. canisters are sent carriage free on receipt of Post-office order by Barry Du Barry and Co., 77, Re' gent-street, London; Fortnum Mason, and Co.; Abbit, 60, Gracechurch-street ; 4, Cheapside; 63 and 150, Ox bard-street ; 330 and 451, Strand ;49 and 60, Bishopsgate street ; Batty, 16, Fin s b ury P avement ; Phillips and Co. tea-dealers; Petty, Wood, and Co., King William-street City ; at 127 High Holborn; and all grocer, BIRTHS. WIEATTON.---01 1 the 13th inst., at 39, Weymouth-sireet o W., the wife of the Rev. Arundell Blount Whatton, LL.B., of a son. Sicll.—On the 15th inst., at Chiswick, the wife of W. T. Sich, Esq., of a daughter. SLATER.—On the 15tt, inst., at tho residence of her father, at Forest hill, the wife of John Slater, Esq., of Paris, of a son. MARRIAGES. BROWNRIGO—TAYLOR--On the 15th i nst., at the Holy Trinity, Brompton, Lieut. Charles J. Brownr4x, R.N., son of Captain Marcus F. Brownrigg, R.N., to Marge rata, only daughter of Captain William Norton Taylor, R.N. Smyrir—BAßßOW.—On the 14th inst., at St. Barnabas, Kensington, the Rev. Vere Broughton Smyth, rector of Bradfielo, Suffolk, to Mary, third daughter of Sir Geo. Barrow, Bart, DEATHS. - BEDroRD.—,On the 14th inst., atWoburn Abbey, his:Grace the Duke of Bedford, aged 73. BRETON.—On the 15th inst., at Brantford, Eliab B. Bre ton, Esq., aged 64. DAsuwooD.—On the 14th inst., at Barton-under-Need• wood, the Rev. John Dashwood, M.A., aged 82. GREY.—On the 13th inst.. at 19, Water-lane, Tower-st., Henry Grey, Esq., aged 60. STOCKEN.—On the 13th inst., at the Parsonage, Wilton, Yorkshire, the Rev. Henry Stocken, aged 64. TOLLEMACIIE. — On the 13th inst., at Brighton, Lady Eli za beth Tollemache, wid ow of the late Admiral Tolle lEache. LONDON : Printed and Published by MORDO YOUNG, of No. 112, Strand, Printer, at Tim Sun Of lice, 112,Strand, in the Precinct of the SaVOY, in the County of Middlemen Friday, May 17,1861,