The Sun. — London, England, 1861-05-14 00:00:00

IMPERIAL PARLIAMENT. HOUSE OF LORDS—YESTERDM no LORD CILANtELLOR took his teat on the woolsack at five o'clock. ROMAN CA.TIIOLIC PAUPERS. The Marquis of ICORMANBY presented a petition com plaining of the treatment of Roman Catholic children in workhouses. PRIVATE BUSINESS. The B ag gymoor Drainage, Whitehaven, Cleator, and Egremont Railway Bills were read a second time. The Fife and Kinross Railway, Tiverton Roads, Elton and Blackburn Roads, Lancashire and Yorkshire Railway (extension to Settle) Bills were read a third time and passed, SPAIN AND ST. DOMINGO. Lord BROUGHAM asked whether due precautions had been taken to prevent the spread of the slave trade, in con sequence of the ceasion'of the island of St. Domingo to Spain? Earl GRANVILLE was understood to inform the noble lord that he would give him an answer to his question to-morrow. _ _ PRINCESS ALICE'S DOWRY BILL. a desire to come and vote on the question, and Dr. Win slow endeavoured to dissuade him, considering it would not be proper for him to do so, being at the time an inmate of a lunatic asylum. He repeated in the ccurse of the day his visit to the medical gentleman in charge of the asylum, who also endeavoured to alter his intention, but finding that he could not effect his object by argument, did not consider it advisable to offer any further opposition. Sir G. C. LEWIS said that in the present state of information it would not be desirable to adopt the course proposed by the honourable and learned member (Mr. Roebuck). He had reason to believe that the Commissioners of Lunacy had inquired into this matter. He would communicate with them, and re quest them to make an official report to the Home Office, and when he received that report he would lay it on the table of the house. (Hear, hear ) Mr. COGAN complained of the indelicacy of brining this matter forward. Lord PALMERSTON said that, however painful it might be to bring this subject before the house, he thought it was a matter that should be decided on higher grounds than those of personal considerations. (Hear, hear.) Tt was a very serious thing that a person should come out of a lunatic asylum and vote on an im portant question, and he thought it necessary for the dignity of the house that there should be an investigation into the circumstances. After some discussion, in the course of which several hon. members stated that they conversed with Mr. Steuart on the night in question and that his mind was sound, the motion was negatived without a division. CUSTOMS AND INLAND REVENUE BILL. This bill was brought up from the Commons and read a first time, RAGGED SCHOOLS. The Earl of SHAFTESBURY moved for the evidence on which that part of the report of the Education Commission which related to ragged schools was founded. He complained of the statements and opinions put forth in this respect, and thought it was actually necessary that the evidence which enabled the commissioners to come to such a conclusion should be produced. He had read the report, and in his opinion it was untrue, unfair, and ungenerous; not wilfully untrue, but untrue in fact ; and altogether a more flagrant abuse of public authority had never been per petrated by any body of men. Numbers of the returns made by the secretaries of ragged schools had altogether been omitted. Incorrect as the statements were as regarded the metropolis, those affecting th e provinces were much worse. In the report Lancashire was put down as having but six ragged schools, with an attendance amounting to 927, but the information supplied by the town of Liverpool alone contradicted such a statement. In 1853 there were in Liverpool 11 Sunday schools, with 1,515 attendants; day schools 11, with 1,478 scholars ; evening ragged schools, 29, with 3,379 attendants; and industrial schools 2, with 210 scholars ; making a total .of 53 schools, with 6,582 attendants in Liverpool alone . while the commissioners had set the number down at six. He felt certain the report would create the greatest dissatisfaction, and that the whole of the benevolent individuals interested in the spread of ragged schools would, he felt certain, protest against it, It had been objected that ragged schools drew scholars from the day schools. That no doubt was true, but it was also true of other schools. Many parents sent their children to free schools in order to save the money they would have to pay for their education, but that was not solely confined to Ragged Schools. Supposing a commission was sent out to examine into the Blue Coat School in London a school founded for the sons of poor citizens. Why, ho thought it would be as certi.ined in a most positive manner, that a great number of the scholars in the Blue-coat School be.. longed to parents who could well afford to pay for their children's education. (Hear, hear.) On the motion for the t econd reading of this bill, Mr. MACD ONOGH complained tbat the bill for the repeal of the paper duties, which the House of Lords re jected last year, was now annexed to a bill of supply, and contended that that was a course contrary to the spirit of the constitution. There was only one precedent for this proceeding, and that was unsuccessful. He called upon the house to strike out the objectionable clauses, and in clude them in a separate bill. Sir J. GRAHAM—The hon. and learned gentleman has received the congratulations of his friends, and I also will congratulate him upon the argument which he has used. Both sides of the house have listened with great pleasure and satisfaction to the hon. and learned gentleman's speech. I should not have risen so scon, but I am afraid if I wait until a later hour in the evening I should have missed the opportunity of offering some observations to the house. The question raised by the hon. and learned gentleman seems to me to be of such importance that I cannot remain altoge ther silent upon it. (Hear.) If the question of the second reading of this bill had assumed a wider range I should have been content to leave the arguments upon it where they rest, after the full discussion which the budget has already undergone. We have cleared the ground as to a surplus, f'r a surplus has been admitted ; and it is admitted, also, that the remission of taxes is desirable, and the amount of remission is unquestionable. The proposal of remission on the other side was larger than that of the Government, and the question as between tea and paper has been decided by a majority of the house, and therefore I will not wander into that subject. Indeed, in my present state I should not be able to do so ; therefore I shall confine my few remarks to the constitutional question which the argument of the hon. and learned gentleman has raised. Before my right hon. friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer avails himself of that locus penitentias which the hon. and learned gentleman so generously affords him as to this mode of legislation, and before the house adopts the argument of the learned gentle man, and regrets the form which this bill has assumed, em bracing both the remission and the imposition of taxes, I wish to say a few words upon the question. In the last session of Parliament I incurred the displeasure of many of my hon. friends sitting below the gangway for the part I took in committee upstairs on the vote which the House of Lords adopted for rejecting the Paper Duties Bill sent up to that house. The hon. and learned gentleman talked of the repeal The Duke of NEWCASTLE eulogised the report as one of the most impartial and fair reports that had ever been laid before the house. The investigation had been most laborious, and would lead to considerable good as regarded the education of the country. So far as raggedechools were concerned, the report only went to this, that it could not look upon those schools as part of the permanent educa tional institnt;ons, and therefore could not recommend that they should share in grants of the public money. Lord PORTMAN bore testimony to the value of these schools in preparing children for other schools forming part of the educational system of the country, but he did not think they were of that permanent character which entitled them to share in the grants voted by the State. Earl GRANVILLE having expressed himself to the same effect, of the paper duties as a measure of doubtful policy, but he was not a member of that house last session when the bill was fought in all its stages, and then went up to the other house by a majority which I will admit was not a large one. (Conservative cheers.) The question was now fully debated and a division taken upon it in the course of the last 10 days, and the house preferred the abolition of that duty to a diminution of the duty upon tea. (Hear, hear.) In the last session I differed from many among those with whom I sit as to the right of the House of Lords to exercise the power of rejecting the Paper Duties Bill ; and in the com mittee upstairs, as the printed proceedings will show, I dif fered from my right hon. friend the Chancellor of the Ex chequer, and from my noble friend with whom I have so 1 long acted on great constitutional questions I differed The Earl of SHAFTESBURY replied, and The motion was withdrawn. The Passengers (Australian Colonies) Bill and the Mar. riages Validity Bill were passed through committee. Their lordships then adjourned. HOUSE OF COMMONS.—YESTERDAY. The SPEAKER took the chair at four o'clock. PRIV ATE BUSINESS. The Lords' amendments to the Bradford, Wakefield, and Leeds Railway Bill, Kilrush and Kilkee 11,.ilway and Poulnasherry Reclamation Bill, and Morayshire Railway Bill were considered and agreed to, The Stratford-upon-Avon Railway Bill as amended was considered and ordered for third reading. The followinc , bills were read a third time and passed : _ Birke , head Railway ; Coleford, Monmruth, Usk, and Pontypool Railway ; Elland Gas ; London and North- Western (Cheshire Lines) ; London and North-Western (Liverpool Lines) ; Rathkealo and Newcastle Junction Railway ; and Salisbury and Dorset Junction Railway. The following bills were considered, and ordered for 3d reading :—Frosterly and Stanhope Railway; London and North Western, and Manchester, Sheffield, and Lincoln shire Railways (Manchester London Road Station) ; Manchester and Wilmslow Roa I ; Mid Wales Railway; Price's Patent Candle Company (Lords) ; Saint George's Harbour. The following bills were considered :—Great North of Scotland Railway, Metropolitan Railway (Extension to Finsbury Circus), Victoria Station and Pimlico Railway, and Wolverhampton New Water. Several private bills were also read a first time. CATHOLIC PAUPERS IN SCOTCH WORK HOUSES. Mr. M'EVOY asked the President of the Poor-law Board whether it was intended to take any evidence before the select committee now sitting on poor relief (England) in reference to the complaints made of the proselytism of Catholics in workhouses in Scotland ? Mr. VILLIERS said he did not think it would be proper to introduce any evidenco of this kind before the committee who were called on to investigate the subject alluded to. MR. MOSS. Mr. Alderman SALOMONS asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs if he had received a copy of the communication addressed to Mr. Moss by the English mer chants of Yokohama, on the sentence of fine, deportation, and imprisonment at Hong Kong recently passed by her Ma jesty's representative at Japan upon that gentleman; and if he intends to lay upon the table any papers on this case for the information of the house Lord J. RUSSELL was understood to say that the papers were referred to the law officers of the Crown, and that at present they could not be produced. ADJOURNMENT OF THE HOUSE FOR WHIT SUNTIDE. Lord PALMERSTON said it might be convenient if ho stated that it was proposed to adjourn on Friday next until the following Thursday. MR. A. STEUART, Mr. ROEBUCK rose to draw the attention of the house to a personal matter, and one which involved a breach of the privileges of that house. He regretted that he should be compelled to mention in a painful manner the name of a member of that house, Mr. Andrew Steuart-- Mr. MACAULAY appealed to the Speaker whether it was usual to bring forward matters of this kind without giving the member who was affected by it notice, or giving his neerest fri, nd such notice. The SPEAKER explained that, as the hon. and learned meini er proposed to make a statement of a circumstance which he considered was a breach of the privileges of the house, he was perfectly in order, and might use his own discretion. Mr. ROEBUCK said that some fifteen years ago Mr. .Steuart was afflicted with a brain fever, which left behind a great irritability. It must be known to all • who were acquainted with the life of Charles Lamb that his sister, who was afflicted in a similar way, had a fore sight when her disease was coming on. Mr. Steuart had the same foresight, and some time since desired to place himself in a lunatic asylum, and applied to Dr r. .Witoslow, the proprietor, to be admitted inmate,aseanshouid have Da Winslowcertificate explained that it was necessary b signed by two medical men be fore he could receive him into his asylum. Mr Stenart obtained such certificate, which stated that '• he was not only dangerous to himself but to others." Notwithstandi ng this the hon. memberforCambridge voted on an important question in that house on last Friday morning. Now he considered it was most improper to allow a man to te come amongst number of excited men—(laughter) — o ut of a lunette asylum. He charged nobody, but as somebody was to blame he considered the subject should be investigated, and he concluded by moving that a select committee be appointed to inquire into the circum- I stances under which the fin. member voted on Friday morning last. (Hear, hear.) Mr. If A DFIE LD seconded the motion. Mr. MACAULAY, as a colleague of the hon. member for Cambridge, considered it right to enter into lana as ex tion on this subject. 'When the hon. and le aeo , a m ember (Mr. Roebuck) communicated the subject t o him he made a statement totally different to that Whi c h he bad made that evening. H e (Mr. Roebuck) said that ho had: heard from the most reliable information that Mr. Steuart, was brought down to the hoaee-- attended by two keepers, who accompanied him to the door of the house, and when the hon. member left they followed him. Re seared that the hon. and learned gentle man must have been misinformed, and said that after he left the house he accompanied and walked across Palace yard with him, and there were no keepers in attendance ; but the hon. and learned member said that they were pre' sent without his knowledge. The hon, and learned member (Mr. Macaulay) then entered into a statement that Mr. Steuart was perfectly sane, not only on the night in ques tion, but ten days previous, as was shown by a letter which he had received from him, but which, most unfortunately, was not at present in his possession. The certificate on which Dr. Winslow admitted him to his asylum was made from the informa tion comniunicfited by Mr, Steuart himself, He enrolled from them with great regret ; but still my opinion was, on looking at the precedents impartially, that the House of Lords had exercised a power inherent in them, and which could not be denied, in their rejection of the Paper Duties Bill. (Hear, hear.) I say it was the exercise of a right but at the same time the policy of exercising that right was doubtful, and it was the exercise of an extreme right. Ido not think the hon. and learned gentleman can produce a pre cedent in which the House of Lords ever before rejected a sup ply bill on purely financial grounds. I believe the act of the House of Lords last session, whatever their right might be, was the exercise of an extreme right unprecedented in our constitutional history. (Cheers.) But, entertaining this opinion, I am bound to add my own conclusions on the course adopted by the Government, and I think that course is sustained by usage, and under circumstances quite right in policy, and one which the' house ought to adopt, by the second reading of this bill, the repeal of the duties proposed by the Government in one bill. (Cheers.) The learned gentleman said he should be astonished if an instance could be produced where the imposition and remission of taxi s were placed in one bill. Mr. MACDONOGH explained that what he meant was, he should be astonished if a precedent could be found of a bill rejected by the House of Lords, and then repassed by this house in a combined bill, and sent up again to the other house. (Hoar, hear.) Sir J. GRAHAM—My answer to that is that since the Revolution the Lords have never rejected a bill of this nature. (Cheers.) It was a novel eourse which the House of Lords pursued; and it shows me that the time has ar rived when the Commons ought to pursue one course, viz,, 1 to refer to ancient practice, to be traced from the earliest times and followed up almost to the present period. (Hear, hear.) I will not go at length into the precedents, still, as to the right and usage of the Commons to combine in one bill the larger portion of the budget for the year, and to combine in it the imposition and remission of taxes, there can be no doubt that it has existed from the R evo l u ti on 1 downwards, and has been sustained by usage and consti -1 tutional authority. (Cheers.) I will only instance the 1 case of 1787, consequent upon the French treaty. In that 1 year a resolution was adopted by the house, and subse•. 1 quently an act was passed for repealing several duties of 1 customs and excise, and for granting other duties in lieu 1 thereof. (Hear, hear.) That act combined both the re -1 pealing of duties and the granting of other duties in lieu 1 thereof. There were schedules of 60 quarto pages, based upon - I mended by Mr. Pitt, carried by Mr. Pitt, and a motion I was made in the Commons to divide the bill into two I parts, but that motion was, after full debate, rejected. (Hear, hear.) In the House of Lords an objection was taken sat their independence was invaded by such a com bination of multifarious matter in one bill, but the argu ments against the bill were resisted, and it was carried by the Lords upon a division. This was a bill which enacted and repealed taxes. (Cheers.) Well, then, what was the course adopted at the time of the union, in 1800, and again on the authority of Mr. Pitt. In the article 3of the Act of Union there were two schedules, extending to seven quarto pages, and they combined both remission of taxes and coun tervailing duties, which were as extensive and important as those which I have described. To come to a later period the hon. and learned gentleman will find that in 1808—he dwelt, I think, very much upon the precedent of 1807—but in 1808, by the 48th Geo. 111 , c. 2, there was an enactment repeal ing duties, continuing duties, and re-enacting duties; not, therefore, the double enactment of this session, but the triple enactment of repealing, continuing, and re-enacting (Cheers.) The bill included sugar, malt, tobacco, and snuff, and the duties upon offices and pensions, and it went on to repeal 6d, and Is. respectively on offices, and after repeal ing and continuing other duties, it re-enacted Gd and ls. respectively on certain other offices for the year 1808. That course was in strict accordance with precedent and the course now adopted by Government, and that bill, so various in its operations fo r one year, was cont i nue d from yearto angetook b year u t thetill place, l v i 82 2z duties . , t I upon duty In that year upon m a mostalt was important made perpetual, change On sugar, tobacco, and snuff, and other things, from 1822-.25, were annually renewed in one bill, and he wished the house to mark that it was by making a tax perpetual that the house had lost a con s tit u ti onal check upon the House of Lords, but which the H ouse of Commons ought never snuff were -weenre theytransferred were m from ade the pertu to have surrendered. (Hea r , h ear.) p e e xci a s l. e In 1826 the d u ti es on tobacco to thecustoms, From 1 82 7 to 1834 the duties upo n sugar, and offices, and and h and ff personal estates were annually renewed in one bill. From 1834 to 183 6 they we re continued in separate acts, but o n ly for two years, and then in 1836 the duties u pon offices and p ens ions were made perpe tual. There rem ained only the sugar duties, and from IS3G to 1816 those duties w ere con tinned Sir R. Peel his administration that, f or left office it had been decided by from year to year in on e bill. Just before the sake of those interested in raising sugar, the uncer tainty which.existed should cease, and the duties were then in 'tle Perpetual. That was th e intention of Sir IL Peel when he resigned office, and it became the duty of the noble lord , to the Se cretary for Foreign Affairs (Lord J. Russe ll), w h o succeed e d hi re not leaving th e large duties at the disposal of the House o f give effect to that intention. The effe ct of Commons was not unforeseen by Sir R. Peel, and Mr. Goulburn declared it would be necessary—the sugar duties having been made perpetual—that other large duties equal in amount should be voted Y e arly ; but from that time to this the precaution has not been taken. I should not desire any interference with the rights of the House of Lords. I should earnestly deprecate it ; and if a course were taken by the Government to coerce the other house, I should loot support it ; but I believe the noble lord at the head of tha Government only desires to determine the dissension which) has exi,stccl, and believe that course to b e correct and just,/ I 7 1.t ,; . ,5 (Cheers.) r i g h hon. friend the member for the Uni versity of Cambridge, who presided over the laboure of the Committee with so =lca.' impartiality, in his report refers particularly to the weaken... l3 g of the power of this house in the two last paragraphs over matters of taxation ; aue l general statutes, which , re )Yes been a tendenc to y m of ak th e e th r e ep lo o r r o t e he du sh ti o e w s s pe t r h p a e ttl tu : i ni.onal debt and o th er c o nsequently keciase back a large amount of o p f ur an p n os ua o l of taxa lion pro vidingtill forthe close st session, on te and national e of te the re charges of a permanent char a c ter . (Hear, hear .) Will you allow me be point out the conclusions which were ar rived at by the right hon. member for Cambridge. In the last of the resolutions the right hon. member says, "It must always be remembered that the power of the house over matters of supply, and all matters relating thereto, are very much weakened by dealing with them in separate bills, instead of uniting the,'n as much as possible in one mea sure, so as to form the nancial arrangement of the year." And to those conclusions, to which the right hon. member came, I now invite your concurrence. I entirely approve of them, but for reasons which I shall now state I was, by a very odd coincidence, the persene who in committee moved the omission of those paragraphs. Why ? Because I thought that the duty confided to n.s by the house was to search for precedents, and that it wag our duty to present to the house indisputable facts and precedents, and not to accompany them with observations, because if observations were permitted unanimity in a committee so constituted would be wholly impossible, and the report would not have been what it is, and which I trust will receive the approba tion of the house. But does the matter rest there ? The last resolution moved by my noble friend at the head of the Government was in strict conformity with the resolutions, and was, I believe, unanimously agreed to. The hon. and learned member would, I am afraid, have dissented from it ; bat he would have stood almost alone. The house re solved that "In order to guard for the future against any undue exercise of power by the House of Lords, and to se cure to the Commons their rightful control over taxation and supply, this house has in its own hands power so to im pose and remit taxes and to frame bills of supply, that the right of the Commons as to matter, manner, measure, and time may be preserved inviolate." (Hear, hear.) With respect to matter, measure, and time, I cordially support the frame of the bill which has been proposed by the Go vernment. From very remote times the distinction as to the rights of the Commons has been clearly defined. In Henry IV.'s time, in the Bill of Indemnity the great prin ciple is laid down from which we must not depart, namely, that the Commons has the right to grant, and that it is the duty of the Lords to assent. Theframework of the present bill expressly lays down and recognises this principle. "We, your Majesty's loyal and dutiful subjects, the Commons of Great Britain and Ireland in Parliament assembled, have, towards raising the necessary supplies for the year, fairly and fully resolved to give and to grant the several rates of duty hereinafter mentioned." The Commons here exclu sively grant, and having laid down the fundamental princi ple, they go on to say, " We pray that, with the consent of of the lords spiritual and temporal, these grants may become law." In 1691 occurred what directly bears upon this sub ject. The managers of the Commons then not only con tended for the exclusive right of giving and granting, but they gave their reasons. They said that the Lords had many reasons to recommend themselves to the favour of theirprince, and to support a figure in the country—they were the final court of judicature ; whilst the Commons had little besides this one of giving money and granting aid. (Hear, hear.) Therefore, they added, anything that en trenched on this power had to be watched with a jealous eye. Now that declaration of the managers of 1691 was in exact accordance with the course now pursued by the Govern ment. I do not say that our rights were invaded last year, but I say that the Lords went to the very verge of their pri vileges, and in my judgment the time has arrived when the House of Commons must prevent such a practice extend ing any further. The hon. and learned member alluded to the framework of the bill. I agree with the hon. and learned member that unless the addenda to a supply bill be in part materia a "tack" of that nature is a violation of the princi ple of the law. We have so decided from the earliest period. But the right hon. member for the University of Dublin will allow me to refer to a splendid passage in a speech he made on a former occasion in which he alluded to the " tack" of 1700. The right hon. member quoted Lord Macaulay, but I have read the passage since, and I find that Macaulay lays down very sound principles as to toe rights of the Commons. Lord Macaulay lays it down that the Lords must either accept or reject the whole bill, and remarks that the measure of 1700 was in the nature of a tack, but so jealous were the Commons that they insisted on its being passed. Lord Macaulay graphically describes the scene. All the pissages leading to the house were closed, and the sergeant had orders to stand at the door and see that no member left the house. The house called over the list of the privy council in order that they might know who counselled the King to veto the act ; and so this bill of 1700, although being in the nature of a tack, yet stands in the statute book, and was carried immediately after the resolution. Now, sir, as to the invasion of the powers of the Lords, the right hon. gen tlemen opposite have contended that the best way of dis cussing this budget was as a whole, and before the Speaker 1 ayes the chair. To-night the budget is being discussed as a whole, and there is no invasion of the privileges of the House of Lords in so discussing the measure. It is open to the Lords to reject the bill as a whole or a part, but if they alter a part it will be equivalent to the rejection of the whole measure. We do not fetter the power of the Lords in assent ing or rejecting, but we do say you must not alter. I do not wish on this occasion to enter into party topics, tut must say that if hon. gentlemenopposite, strong as they are in this house and perhaps stronger in the other, think that the time has come for withdrawing the confidence of this house from the present Government, they could seize no fitter time for deposing the Government than by procuring th i l rejection of the bill; but if they are not prepared to in cur that responsibility, then I say that as good subjects they are bound to allow the executive to deal witb the finances of the country on their responsibility, and in the manner which appears to them to be the best suited to the exigencies of the year. (Hear, hear.) I have heard some thing about a hustinef t e cry, " Down with the paper-duty repeal ; up with tea-duty reduction." I don't want to raise invidious hustings cries ; but if I were asked my opinion, should say that a cry of " Up with the Lords, and down with the Commons" would be one which could meet with only one response on all the hustings in the country. (Hear, hear.) I should not be afraid to go to the country against such a cry, which I fully believe would be repudi ated by a tremendous majority. (Cheers.) Lord J. MANNERS was not of opinion that the house would follow the advice of the right hon. baronet. The right hon. baronet had been challenged by his hon. and learned friend the member for Sligo, and he had not re• sponded to the challenge; ha had not shown a single pre cedent for sending back again a bill that had been rejected by the Lords. The right hon. baronet had quoted Lord Macaulay, but he (Lord J. Manners) would, with the per- Mission of the house, refer to Mr. Hallam, who might be supposed to have Wien a dispassionate view of their pri vileges. The noble lord proceeded to quote at length from Hallam's " Constitutional History" to show that the Lords had not exceeded their privileges in altering a money bill, and that such acts on their parts had frequently been sub mitted to by the Commons. Turning to the bill itself, he contended that they were entitled to discuss a budget with out any political or party accusations. This year they could take the budget on financial considerations alone, whereas last year they had one which was complicated with political questions and a one-sided French treaty. Assum ing, for the sake of argument, that in the budget the Go vernment held out a fair prospect of a surplus, what, he would ask, would be the financial position of the country at the end of the year under the budget as now proposed to them ? The right hon. gentleman proposed a surplu- ot aboue.E4oo,o lo , but by what mode was that arrived at? In order to repeal the duty on paper, the toiling millions of the country were to be called upon to pay an additional fiverence per pound on tea, and the class removed only one degree from them were to pay one penny in the pound on the income tax. That was the sum total of the budget, admitting all the calculations of the Chancellor of the Exchequer to be correct. What were the cir cumstances under which this improvident repeal of taxation was proposed to them ? They had heard from the noble lord at the head of the Government that there was nothing in the aspect of foreign powers which should deter them from making this large and permanent re • duction in their financial resources. He thought, how ever, there was great ground for nervous apprehension when we looked around us, as to what the future would bring forth—(hear, hear)—and he was afraid as a necessary con sequence of this budget we should eventually be burdened with a Is. income tax. The speech of the hon. and learned gentleman (Mr. Macdonogh) went so fully and ably into the constitutional question that he did not think it neces sary to criticise particularly the form and framework of the budget. It was admitted on all hands that it had been framed. with the object of preventing the House of Lords considering this one element of the budget which had met with so little favour in the country, -and had Leen nearly condemned in that house. He had listened with consider. able interest to the very animated speech in which the Chancellor of the Exchequer replied to or rather anticipated the arguments of his hon. friend the member for Liverpool. The right hon. gentleman, following a precedent which seemed to him (Lord J. Manners) a very inconvenient one, introduced to their attention some specimens of new menu • facture which he wished them to understand would be brought into beneficial use if the paper duty were repealed. There was nothing too extravagant for the Chancellor of the Exchequer to say in favour of this particular manufac ture which had for the moment attracted his attention. The material • was said to be stronger than iron, cheaper than lead, and impervious to the weather. It was to combine every excellence of iron and lead, and in short, the conclu sion left on his mind was that the right hon. gentleman intended, provided only the legi • slature would consent to abolish the duty on paper, to introduce this new material in all our arsenals and counting-houses, and that we were about to deck our ships in garments of this imperishable stuff. But he must say this system of advertising par ticular inventions of particul ar i nventors was not con sistent with the dignity of the house nor with the great ness of the subjects which they were now discussing. If the House of Commons had this year the courage and good sense to do for themselves that which the House of lords did for thew loot year, they should take a wane Vr, MAY 14, 1861. which would not jeopardise any great manufacture likely to to that resolution you cannot doubt that it is the right of spring out of the remission of the paper eitity. It . was a the House of Commons to propose the manner' , mount, and matter also for the consideration of the house whether, if nature of taxes. (Hear.) As was explained very clearly paper was to be turned to the manufacture of the multi- by my right hon. friend the member for Carlfele, on the farious articles mentioned by the Chancellor of the Ex- subject of precedents, in' the eat ly part of the year 1787 such chequer, there would not be so much the less for the more an instance occurred. But, as happened to Mr. Pitt, he had important purposes to which it was at present devoted. the year before shown his sense of the privileges of the They were told by the Chancellor of the Exchequer that Commons when it was said in the Lords there was a deficit, the paper duty was a retrograde duty, and the right hon. and he refused to send up the accounts of the Commons to gentleman had also told th e m that, whatever the circum- be examined by the Lords. Then Mr. Pitt accomplished a stances, the paper d u ty mus t go on increasing. Which of memorable act—a commercial treaty with France, which these statements was the house to take ? Was it to be • was of great benefit to both countries. After a most delicate deemed a progressive duty, or was it to be denounced as and careful investigation into the 'customs and excise Mr. win thy of condeinnation on the ground of its retrograde Pitt passed 3,700 resolutions and the excise duties were re qualities ? lie could understand this argument as applied duced. Well, he likewise imposed taxes in the same bill, to some excise duties, w hi c h, if not retrograde, were eta- and when that bill went up to the House of Lords, Lord tionary. Malt, for in s t ance , in 1831 produced £5,036,667, Carlisle objected that the bill contained three principal ob and in 1858, in spite of th e improvements that had taken jects—a commercial treaty of which they approved; con place in the manufacture, an d in spite of the increase of the solidation, which they did not approve; and, above all, population, the amount was only £5,592,624. But the paper taxes, to which they might be disposed to cbject. Let the duty, which produced in 1831 £730,000, produced in bill then, he contended, be divided into three separate parts, 1858 £1,281,023. Again, malt in 1836 produced and let the house go into committee on each object. That £5,699,878, as compared with £5,592,624 in 1858; but paper speech was answered by Lord Sydney, who was at that increased in every one of the subsequent years, with one time a Secretary of State, and he said that all three mat exception only, and the result was as follows :—in 1836 it ters belonged to one arrangement, and tended to one end, produced £841,131; in 1858, X 1,282,023; in 1859, £1,281,023 ; and that was the fact, and the question then raised was ap in 1860, £1,451,258; and in 1861 it reached the hitherto plicable to the present bill, because all these things formed • unapproachable point of X 1,462,825. This was the tax that parts of one arrangement, and tended to one end, viz., the was about to be repealed as a comparativ, ly unproductive settlement of the finances for the year. The opponents of source of revenue, and let the house °bite, ye what would be that bill divi led the house, and were beaten by 29 to 7,and the effect of the repeal. It had been the policy of the therefore the Lords themselves, taking a fall and distinct * house during the last few years to abolish innumerable view of all their privileges, decided by more than three to duties of customs and excise, and the result had been that one that they ought to consider the bill as a whole. Was the taxation of the coun ry was now placed upon compare- that all? Was there no other precedent.? It was that the Lively very few articles. And let it be remembered that house ought not to repeal and lay on taxes in the same bill. every fresh duty they altogether repealed must have the Another great measure of Mr. Pitt's was the introduction effect of rivetting still m ore firmly the duty on the re- of the income tax. He had very much increased the assessed maining taxable articles. Therefore the effect of repeal- taxes, but his measure had failed, being evaded in various ing this duty on paper must and would be to prevent ways, and he conceived the idea of obtaining the necessary those remissions in the other excise duties, or indeed in any supplies for carryi' gore the arduous war in which the coun other duties, which might in the opinion of the house try was then engaged in a totally different manner, and in have a better claim for repeal than the excise duty on paper. troduced a measure, the 39 Geo. 111., c. 13, which began He thought there were few in that house who would, from with the total repeal of the act of the preceding year, which the extraneous prilitical considerations to which he had ad- levied the additional assessed taxes, and then proceeded to vetted, and which ought not to be regarded in discussing impose an incometax to provide for the revenue of the year. financial questions in the house, support the repeal of this (Hear, hear.) In 1807 there was a bill in respect of certain tax. Who was there that would maintain, that in itself duties of excise in Ireland, altering various duties, increas and by itself the duty bn paper was so much more obnoxious ing some and diminishing others. One of the clauses was a than any other of the duties left upon the statute book that simple provision abolishing altogether the duties on ale and ought to have priority in remission? That was not the ge- beer in Ireland. This was an act in conformity with the neral view in the house—it was net the general view enter- one now proposed. The income tax was increased, and the tamed by the country at large ; and with regard to the opi- duties on tea and sugar retained, awl the duty on paper nions of foreigners, who might, be regarded as impartial totally repealed. It is plain, therefore that we aro proceed judges, a well-known writer in the Journal des Debats de- ing according to precedent, but we are met by the observe scribed the application of the surplus by Mr. Gladstone as a tion that it is not a convenient mode of doing it. It limits measure of conciliation to the radical press, which had given the power of the House of LordS, said the right hon. gen rise to universal discontent in the country. The right hon. tleman who spoke last, and he even went so far as to say gentleman had on a former occasion referred'in contemptu- it was an insult to them. I cannot see how it can be an ous terms to the expression of opinion the country had given insult to send them up a bill similar to two bills which Mr. in regard to the budget through the authorised means of Pitt has sent up. Nobody cau deny that the House of petitions; but he (Lord J. Manners) did not know how Lords has a perfect right to reject a bill sent up by the they could better arrive at a knowledge of the views of the Commons. They have always asserted that right, and it country than from the petitions presented to the house. has never been questioned. My right hon. friend near me Now, if any one referred to the papers sent round that (Sir J. Graham) said it was an extreme right which ought morning he would see that the number of petitions in favour not to be resorted to in ordinary cases. The real question of the financial scheme of the Government fell infinitely before us is, whether the house has used that discretion short of those which condemned it. The right hon. gentle- wisely or not, and whether it is an extreme case. My man the member for Carlisle (Sir J. Graham) seemed opinion is the other way; but I am not going to complain anxious that this question should be made a party struggle, either of the House of Lords or of the House of Commons but he fox one should very much regret any such result. on this occasion. lam quite satisfied that they considered The Opposition side of the house had shown during the pre- the revenue derivable from the tax on paper to be necessary sent session every disposition to support her Majesty's for the service of the country, and on that ground rejected Government, and to maintain them in office. The noble the bill. The question for the house now is, what will be lord at the head of the Government, he was certain, the case for the future. Admitting that the House of would not have forgotten a certain memorable evening Lords have an extreme right, is it desirable that, having when, attacked from behind with a vigour seldom excelled been successful in doing that for which they have no pre in that house, he owed his safety to the mediation and decedent whatever in rejecting a bill for removing a tax which fence that came from the Opposition benches. •He did they thought necessary for the purpose of raising sufficient not then share in the desire of the right hon. gentle- revenue for .lae year, is it desirable to admit the House of man ; but, at the same time, he believed that never had an Lords to the possession of equal functions with the Com occasion during the session been presented more important mons in respect to the imposition or remission of taxes? than this, and never had there been an occasion when it (Hear, hear.) That is the extent to which the right hon. more behoved the House. of Commons to refuse its consent member for Stroud went last year, and the hon. gentlemen to the attempt which was now being made to sacrifice to on the other side of the house do not speak quite so plainly the contingency of party alike financial safety and constitu- as the right hon gentleman the member for Stroud. It is tional rights. (Hear.) They had given the budget the care- plain th it they consider the House of Commons so ill ful, minute, and impartial consideration which the import- advised and inconsiderate in financial matters that it is ne a.nceof the Chancellor of the Exchequer's proposals deserved, cessary to send their financial schemes to the House of and they found in them the unmistakeable signs of a poli- Lords to be settled by an arrangement between the two tical origin and a fatal disregard to the best interests of the houses. That is what I deny. My belief is, that the great nation. (Hear.) In sorrow, then, rather than in anger, they privilege which was maintained by our ancestors, and as said to the right hon. gentleman, " Take back your budget, serted by the acts which establish their privileges, it is our end reserving to times of more undoubted surplus sour duty to maintain for the good of the trade and commerce of glowing visions of theoretical finance, submit to us a pro- - athe country, which are so much affected by our financial position which may at once satisfy the best requirements arrangements. If, when we have determined certain taxes of the people and maintain unimpaired the financial re- shall be altered or remitted, the House of Lords is to say sources and credit of the country." (Cheers.) they shall be retained, nothing but confusion can result. Sir F. GOLDSMID supported the second reading of the That must be the inevitable result of taking the proceedings bill, of last year as a precedent, and not to take any means by Mr. BOLT thought the course adopted by the Govern , which we can secureour ancient privileges. It is a right which ment novel, and calculated to nullity the action of the we not only have, but which we ought to exercise, and if w• other branch of the Legislature, which he deprecated, be- put all these measures into one bill the House of Lords must cause, although he admitted that the House of Commons either accept or reject. The hon. and learned gentleman had the fullest right of taxation, it was with the qualification made some supposed proposition of relieving the country that it had the assent of the other branches of the Legis- from all imposts, and putting on an Bs. income tax. Ido lature. - not believe that any House of Commons would do such a Mr. COLLIER said that there was no case in which the thing as that, and to make the attempt would be rash and Souse of Lords had rejected taxing bills en purely Ilium- injurious to the country. 'Notwithstanding the setting up cial grounds, and therefoie he thought the course propossd of direct taxation, which it is said we are doing, I find that of placing all the resolutions on the Budget in ono bill was the indirect taxation has increased from £33,000,000 to legal and constitutional. £40,000,000, and certainty that does not lo'ok as if we are Mr. WHITESIDE expressed his surprise at the bold destroy ing the revenue. I thing the question of the reduction tine of the hon. and learned gentleman in his denial of of the tea as against the paper duties has been discussed the right of the Peers to act as they di 1 last session, en ugh, and I shall leave the matter in the hands of my right remembering that o n very high constitutional autho- hon. friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer, but at the rity the Nestor of th e Hous a of Lords had declared that same time I cannot help being surprised at the rapidity of history and precedent alike justified the course which the change in the opinions of hon, gentlemen opposite re they took. (Hear, hear.) The right hon, baronet (Sir J. specting the supplies. For some days nothing was heard Graham) was not p re par e d to assert that the House of but inquiries after the surplus, and its existence was denied Lords had exceeded their privileges, but while he admitted altoge they. It was said that it was an entire delusion they had not acted in an unconstitutional manner, he still When they had gone on proclaiming that for some days they called upon the house to adopt measures t 3 prevent their announced that they should not be surprised if after all doing the same thing again. The right hon. baronet had there was a surplus, and not only that, but the surplus quoted Mr. Pitt's conduct in connection with the French would afford a million and a quarter more for the reduction treaty, when it was said that the Lords had attempted of taxation. But now after the division on the very pees to sever two bills--the Consolidation of the Customs tion, and when the Chancellor of the Exchequer had stated and the consideration of the treaty. Now, Mr. the manner in which the surplus is to be disposed of, we Fox on that occasion was of opinion that the two are met again by the old cry of no surplus at all. How measures ought t o h ave been divided, and Mr. can it be said that we propose to diminish the revenue by Grenville o bj ec ted t o the severance of the bills. reducing the paper duties? Let the house look at what The right h on . gen tl e man t u rned to another subject and took place between 1844 and 18-54, There was in that said the noble l or d (L o rd 3. Russell) had done a very wise period a total abolition of duty on various articles, includ thing in pro v idi n g f or a perma nent duty, but the right hon. ing glass, bricks, and soap, and that reduction of taxation gentleman s a id th ere was s till a drawback in that arrange- amounted to 21 millions. At the same time, other taxes ment. Lo r d M ans fi e ld sa id i n his judicial capacity that a were put on, amounting to £1,700,000. Does it follow resolution o f th e H owe o f Commons he would not regard that because of that reduction there was a deficiency of the result o f making a tax a permanent one. What he £BOO,OOO ? No ; on the contrary, in consequence of the (Mr. Whiteside) wished them to observe was this, that the greater employment of labour and greater consumption House of Commons cou ld no t deal with it annually. Where of taxable articles, instead of there being a deficiency of was there a bill, h e wo uld as k, within 50 years past, drawn £BOO,OOO, there was actually an excess of £500,000, and so up in the present f o rm e (H e ar, hear.) The right hon. ba. when this reduction shall take place, instead of there ronet, with hi s l og i ca l m i n d , wou ld say, why did the right being a total loss from the abolition of this duty, which hon. gentleman (the Ch ance llor of the Exchequer) do the so materially interferes with manufactures, we may ex matter right last y ear an d wr ong on the present occasion ? pect from the relief which will be given that the revenue (Hear.) The noble lord who had been twice Lord Chan- will rise again to a higher amount. (Hear, hear.) Some cellor (Lord Lyndhurst), and whose judgment was looked persons were employed in making bricks and many on up to by half th e c i v ili se d wor ld, showed unmistakably that soap, and nobody seemed to think that any harm would the Lords h a d th e r i g ht to take the course which they happen to the country if these branches of industry were wisely pursued in the last session. Was it just—was it relieved, but the moment you come to paper it is imagined constitutional—was it w i se to compel the Lords to that some great calamity is to happen. Paper may be em adopt th e bill so f rame d as the present bill was, played for purposes different from bricks and glass, but as and to g i ve th e i r assen t to a measure which in regards the industry which is employed in its production their consciences th ey f e lt bound to reject in there is no difference whatever. Men are employed and the last sess i on o f P ar li amen t s (Hear.) Now, was not the receive wages the same as in the case of bricks and glass, bill upon the table one of a most objectionable description ? but there is some hobgoblin which tikes the shape of a Why should such a bill be brought in in a committee of penny newspaper, which always seems to frighten hon. ways and means for the supplies e f the year, instead of gentlemen opposite into a continued opposition to the abo being introduced and considered in the ordinary way of any lition of the duty, (" Oh," from the Opposition.) It is bill for the repeal of a particular duty? (He ar , hear.) He impossible not to see in the course of these debates a de firmly believed that nothing but an overwhelming sense of sire to depreciate the measures and to injure the political duty could have induced the House of Lords t a throw out reputation of my right hon. friend who sits near me. (Oh, the bill which the right hon. gentleman had sent lap to from the Opposition, and cheers from the Liberal benches.) them last session. When the right hon. baronet held out Well, sir, I think it is the duty of every colleague of a threat as to what they might expect by an appeal to the my right hon. friend to resist that attempt; and, be country, he (Mr. Whiteside) would answer that taunt by lieving that he has always employed his great talents for saying, " Wee be to the present Government if they went to the benefit of the people of this country—believing that the country with a cry of paper against tea and sugar. the people will appreciate his exertions on their behalf—l (Opposition cheers.) Believing the present bill to be intro- think that their gratitude for these efforts will stifle all the duced with the view of insulting the Upper Chamber, and accusations which party has made, and that my right hon. of the Chancellor of the Exchequer taking his revenge for friend will have an enduring reputation amongst those who the defeat he sustained last session, he felt bound to give have admired his splendid abilities and his devotion to levery opposition to the course which the Government had the welfare and well-being of the country. (Loud cheers.) determined upon pursuing. (Opposition cheers.) Lord It. CECIL, who spoke amid much interruplion, Lord J. RUSSELL — The right hon gentleman who has condemned the course of proceeding of that house towards just sal down has argued the case with great ingenuity. the Peers, upon whom, he said, they were now making a But even the ingenuity of the right hon. gentleman can most unjust attack. All the main questions of the day never argue away the constitutional privileges of this house. were now becoming financial measures, and if the Comm ons (Hear.) I hare heard in the course of this debate many interposed its privileges in all thes e measures the funct i ons arguments . a g ainst the course the Government intend to of the House of Lords would be so cramped and limited pursue ; but many of those arguments were far w id e of the that it would be excluded from the arena of legislative deli subject under consideration, and were directed evidently to beraticn. . very ii a bl e b referredl e speech inreg l a t r i d s t r e ea t l h ly e argued ea a e m e o f s most con- 1807; n- timethe h t o h n a . t m w e e nrb er should some other than the measure before the house. (Hear.) Mr. DU CANE moved the adjournment of . Now the hon. and learned gentleman who opened the de - The CHANCELLOR of the EXCIIEQUER—I hope April. Thee but there the case occurred in which th e passing of the financial measures, which have been already unusually pro eblaaateivtheliys evening againa pro malt tax was joined with th e question o f th e l eg ality of cer- longed, before we accede to the farther adjournment of a to the taro acts of the Auditor of the Exchequer, an d it was quite dfscussion in which no issue has been raised. (Hear, hear.) t a in ta a ck certain that was a question by itself and not a question of Indeed, lam not aware that it is intended to make any money or supply, and therefore the Lords were perfectly motion or offer any opposition on this stage of the bill. The willre view reconsiderth e proceedings proposal. while on the one hand it is our bounden duty to assert our Government have put aside all business of every descrip right in rejecting the bill. (Hear.) I quite admit that financial statement was made on the Bth . of A ancient privileges—(hear)—on the other hand, the Lords tion in order t-,go ou with the financial business. The should have a right of assertin g th e i rs ; b u t forcin g the plan contained only two propositions, neither of a very novel Lords by means of money bills has been abandoned for or complex character, and yet we are now only at the second nearly a century and a half. (H ear .) B u t a ll the argu- re ading of the bill, and have consumed a sixth part ments against tacking fell to th e groun d, an d have no ap- of the Session ; 17 days were occupied before the plication. (Hear.) I take it that the question before the Speaker was allowed to leave the chair—a fact house is whether we are justified by the law of Parliament entirely unprecedented in our financial history. In 1853, in introducing into a bill several measures of finance bear- when very extensive propositions were proposed, after seven ing on the financial arrangements of the year, and whether days we were allowed to proceed to the discussion of them it is right and expedient to exercise that power. (Hear.) in Ways and Means. in 1845, when the proposals were also Now, hon. gentlemen who agreed last year almost unani- extensive, the discussion itt Committee of Ways and Means mously to the resolutions Proposed by my noble friend at was commenced after three days. The Government wished the head of the Gove rn ment Seem now t o have forgotten to carry on the financial business from day to day, what those resolutions w ere. (aeon) The first of those but l i on members would not give way. Never until resolutions was that if was the ri g ht of the House o f Corn- to-night have we h ea rd o f thi s const i tut i ona l q uestion. mons to grant aid and supplies to the Crown , an d that that (~ Oh," and " . Hear. ") At least it has no t been debated right is in the Commons alone. (Hear.) Well, if yell agree on previous nights, B ut no issue is challenged 94 the tlesetion, nor am I awe :e that any is to be re-4d. (Hear.) I need hardly tell the house that great puelic in jury and annoyance arises from a discussion which is pro tracted beyond all precedent. The revenue of the Customs is suffering very perceptibly from the uncertainty attendant on proposals involving changes in our financial system. On account also of the airangements which have to be made for levying the income tax, much inconvenience is caused to the public service by these delays. It must not be for gotten that there are other stages through which the bill must pass, and that this is not the last opportunity for dis cussion. I certainly must, on the part of the Government, objeo to the motion of the hon. gentleman, and I trust that if he does not withdraw it, the house will show themselves sensible of the necessity of proceeding with the financial business without further delay. Mr. DISRAELI—I think it is not desirable that there should be any division upon a question of this kind, and therefore I agree with the Chancellor of the Exchequer that it will be well fur the house calmly to consider, and not to decide passionately upon, the course which they will now adopt. The Chancellor of the Exchequer says that it be comes us to consider in a comprehensive manner what has occurred during the last month with respect to the measures brought forward by the Government. He tells us that in no other instance that he can recall, and he has referred to the case of 1853 and other years, has so great a delay taken place in the consideration of the financial measures of the Government. He will pardon me for saying that, with re spect to measures of this character, the house has never be fore been placed in the position in which we have been placed this year. (Cheers.) There have, no doubt, been equally important measures of finance brought forward by the Government—l will even admit that there have been more important, larger, and more extensive measures; but they have never been connected with a combination of cir cumstances such as we witness this year, and from which it arises that this house, and this house alone, can decide upon the merits of the policy recommended. (Hear, hear.) Under these circumstances, and considering that the other house is to have no power of revising the measures of the Government, it does become this house—the single house which is to decide upon the policy of the Government—to proceed with caution and delibera tion. (Hear, hear.) There cannot be a situation conceived in which caution and consideration could be more t equisite and more urgently demanded. The Chancellor of the Ex chequer has again mentioned the great inconveniences to the finances and to the trade and commerce of the country which may arise from these delays--delays, let me remind him, of deliberation. Now, although the right hon. gen tleman has more than once touched upon the subject, I have not been able to realise any clear or precise idea as to what those inconveniences are. First, let us consider the income tax. No doubt inconvenience must arise to the Government from depending on a tax levied under a law which has become extinct ; but that is not the fault of the House of Commons. (Hear, hear.) The Act under which the income tax is raised had expired before these measures were brought forward, and if it was matter of urgency that it should be immediately renewed, why did not the Chan cellor of the Exchequer introduce a bill on that subject, and ask us to pass it immediately ? (Cheers.) But I am bound to say, speaking upon such a subject with all diffidence, and all deference to the Chancellor of the Exchequer, that, from such slight experience as I have of the consequences of that Aet having expired before the financial exposition has been offered to the house, no inconvenience can arise from that circumstance. The action must necessarily be of an cx post facto character, and the Chancellor of the Exchequer has already announced to the house that he will take care that no one who has received his last quarter's dividends shall escape its action. Therefore, practically speaking, I may, I think, venture to say that the house may dismiss from their minds the idea that any inconvenience to the public service I will result from the expiration of the income tax act. Then I come to the great taxes—the great duties upon tea and sugar. What possible incon venienc e can arise from the course which the house is taking in deliberating upon the measures of the Government with regard to those taxes ? We all know that immediately the resolutions with respect to those duties are passed by the Committee of Ways and Means the Govern ment acts upon them. At this moment those duties are levied according to the resolutions passed in Committee of Ways and Means. Is it that the Government are afraid that there will be another attempt to reduce those duties ? Why, a Government in the proud position which they occupy with respect to that subject may defy any attempt of that kind, and I do not suppose that the Chan cellor of the Exchequer will pretend that at this moment the Government and the house are waiting with anxiety to see whether another effort will be made by the Opposition to reduce those taxes. Although the law under which they will ultimately be levied is not passed, those duties are paid, and I do not doubt that this very day a considerable revenue has been received from them in virtue of the reso- Jutiens which we have passed. But, then, I come te another branch of trade, in which the Chancellor of the Exch quer will tell me that very great inconvenience and very great loss will be occasioned, both to the trade and to the Treasury, by the time which we are taking in consider ing what course we ought to adopt—l mean the paper trade. But does the Chancellor of the Exchequer seriously and really make that a plea for calling upon the house to come to a resolution ? (An hon. Member—" He has not said a word about it.") The other night the right hon. gentle man particularly referred to it. lie did not dwell upon that, but he dwells upon the great inconvenience and injury to trade which will be occasioned by our not passing these measures. Is it that he really refers to the tea and sugar , luties ? If he does not mean it, there aro a great many gentlemen in this house who believe that the paper trade is very much injured by our deliberating upon these measures. But I beg the house clearly to understand that that is not the fact—that neither the trade nor the Exchequer can pos sit.ly suffer by this suspen , e. It is quite clear that the trade does not believe that it suffers, because of two members of , his house who are intimately connected with that trade, and who represent different opinions one more extreme than the other, with respect to the policy pursued by the Go vernment, one made a motion the other night which was to occasion a great delay in the measures of the Chancellor of the Exchequer, and, therefore, the branch of the trade which he represented, more especially as concerns Ireland, does not apprehend injury from delay ; and the other, who is a warm supporter of the Chancellor of the Exchequer, the hon. member for Abingdon (Mr. Norris), has for one of those nights devoted to independent members, but of which her Majesty's Government now so much grudge them the enjoyment—(cheers)—for next Tuesday given notice of a motion for the appointment of a committee to inquire into the paper trade. Therefore he does not anticipate that our delay will cause any injury to his trade. The Chancellor of the Exchequer knows perfectly well that from the system of drawbacks it is impossible that the Exchequer can be injured. I beg to remind the house that the other night, when the hon. member for Honiton (Mr. Moffett) told the Chancellor of the Exchequer that he would by October lose £500,000 or £610,000 upon the paper duty, the right hon. gentleman, who knew his business, told him that he was quite mistaken, and that he should not lose a single farthing. Now, i have gone through all the great taxes, the income-tax, the tea and sugar duties, and the paper duty. What other interests are there that any one can pretend are placed in jeopardy by the House of Com mons performing the greatest duty which can devolve upon it—that of duly considering measures of taxa tion ? Is there, then, any foundation for the statements, 'he ambiguous and at the same time the menacing state ments, in which the Chancellor of the Exchequer is so and of indulging? (Hear, hear.) What reasons are there for asking the house to come to a precipitate con elusion ? I beg the noble lord the First Minister to con sider this. It is his opinion that the other House of Par liament is to exercise no judgment upon these questions. Be it so. I will on this occasion admit the whole case of the Government. I will enter into none of the controversy which has taken place to-night upon what is called the constitutional question. Ad alit not only that it is the un deniable right of the House of Commons to originate Money Bills, but that the House of .Lords must pass them under all circumstances. Take the broadest view of the case and what is the deduction, what is the moral— the inevitable moral—that must be drawn ? That it becomes the Prime Minister, under these circum stances, to bring forward no measures of finance which he does not believe will meet with the undoubted support of those who represent the people in this house. If the will of this house alone is to decide these questions, a wise and politic Minister would not bring forward measures which could only be passed by a very bare majority. (Hear.) If the undeniable privilege of our house is that we are to have sole authority in these matters, our responsibility becomes proportionately greater, and proportionately greater becomes the responsibility of the Minister who leads this house, and advises this great council of the nation. But what has taken place to-night ? The Chancellor of the Exchequer says that there is no issue before us. No issue before us A Mielster rises and moves the second read ing of a bill which includes the whole of his financial scheme, and on the first night of the debate says that there is no issue before us. (Cheers.) Is not the second reacting of this financial scheme an issue large enough ? And what right has the Minister to presume that there may be inc division challenged upon the merits of his policy ? What right has he to make any assumption of the kind ? (Cries of " Divide, the house divide !" answered by cheers.) re Let mem that we come down to-night to discuss the ind financial policy of the Minister. The hon. and learned gentleman who opened the debate confined himself to the consideration of th e con stitutional question. He dealt with that question in a clear and vigorous speech, well entitled to the attention of the house, but he sedulously guarded himself against moving an amen dment upon that point, and left the large i ssue open. Upon that large issue not a word has been spoken to-night but by a Minister of the Crown. A Minis ter of the Cro wn has made a s peech upon the financial scheme of the Government. He went Mb great detail in his examination of the budget, and called upon me to answer his reproaches, and state the policy that I intended to pur sue. With this challenge still ringing in my ears, which we have had no opportunity of answering—(cheers)—the Chancellor of the Exchequer rises and expresses his sad sur prise that the House of Commons should discuss his budget. He gave no ground or reason for his objection. The hon. gentleman may be pursuing a policy that is honourable alike to the country and to himself, but he is at the same time taking,if not an u nprecedented,at least a very unusual 1 G91111e 3 agd ho ought to be the last mai), to grudge u 4 the fullest 17, v. - inflation of his measures. I hope most sincerely that we shall n tbe put to the trouble of a division, and that the noble lord at the head of the Government will feel that it is for his own honour and that of the house that this debate should be adjourned. (Cheers.) Lord PALMERSTON—I must admit that therighthon. gentleman had made a very convincing si,eech, but the con•. victims that it has brought to mind is the very opposite of the conclusion to which he would have us arrive. (A laugh.) If I understood the right hon. gentleman rightly, he does not intend to dispute the past of the budget connected with the income-tax, nor does he intend to revive the ques tion of the tea duties, nor will he object to the repeal of the paper duties. (Mr. Disraeli intimated his dissent ) The rk_ht hon. gentleman stated that these matters had been decided—("No I")—and that on the resolutions of the house the duties had been levied as a matter of course. The right hon. gentleman has not announced any amendment er any intention of objecting to the second reading, but he has simply stated that he wishes for discussion. The right hon. gentleman criticises the statement that no issue has been raised. But I say that no issue has bens raised. (Cheers.) There has been a long debate, but no one has announced any intention of opposing the second reading. The only question is whether those who object in general to the financial arrangements of the Government, or whether those who object to combine the financial measures in one measure, shall have an opportunity of fairly discuss ing the matter. My right hon. friend has correctly stated that there will be many occasions of discussing these points. There will be first the motion, sir, for your leaving the chair to go into committee. On that occasion there will be a full opportunity of discussing all the details of the general financial arrangements of my right hon. friend. On the other hand, those who object to the arrangement by which all the financial proposals are placed in one bill, might make their objections in committee on the bill. Therefore, I must say we have heard no reason for the adjournment of the debate. (Cheers.) If indeed it could be said that the second reading was opposed—if notice of some amendment had been given, and if it could be alleged that members had had no opportunity of stating their reasons, that might be a rea son for adjourning this debate. But, as we are all agreed that the second reading is to pass without a division—(op position cries of "Oh I")—silence gives consent, and as every one is silent in regard to any opposition to the second reading, I am entitled to assume that no such intention exists. (Oh, oh I and cheers.) That bung the case, I shall certainly object to the adjournment. (Cheers.) Mr. NEWDEGATE agreed that the house was now in a most awkward position; but who had caused it? He objected to the form of this Supply Bill as touching the privileges of this house. The house was now suffering the incon venience of having all these proposals consolidated in one Bill. If they had been submitted severally, there would not have been this delay. As it was, the privileges of the house had been invaded. The object of the Govern ment was to make every financial question a question of confidence in the Government and against such a mode of coercing the House of Commons he would protest. (Hear.) The house then divided, when the numbers were— For the adjournment. 164 Against it Majority.... Mr. BENTINCK said they had often heard that a bad cause made a bad advocate, and he was bound to say he did not think it possible that any combinationof circumstances • could have made the noble lord (Palmerston) so bad an ad vocate as he had shown himself to be in this case. (Hear.) The noble lord's argument amounted to this--that they were to prejudge their decision without discussing it. He seemed to think that, because no public notice had been given of a determination to oppose the second reading, no debate ought to take place upon it. He demurred to that reasoning, and moved that the house do now adjourn. (Divide, divide.) Lord PALMERSTON was sorry that he was to bad an adv• Tate, but was somewhat consoled by the result of the division. (Laughter.) If the hon. member meant to take the sense of the house upon the second reading of the bill he could not have a better opportunity of doing so than the present—(a laugh) —as there was not likely to be so full a house upon any future occasion. If he thought that by op posing the adjournment he was precluding members from the fullest discussion of the bill, he would willingly bow to the wishes of the minority, but ample opportunities would occur hereafter for discussing the measure, and he therefore felt himself bound to oppose the adjournment. (Cries or Divide.) The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER was sur prised to hear the right hon. gentleman (Mr. Disraeli) say that the public interests could not suffer by delay. Labori ous and troublesome processes were to be gone through before the new assessment for the income-tax could be made, and if delay took place it would be difficult to get those processes completed so as to collect the income-tar for the year within the year. (Hear, hear.) It was there fore true that an unusual time had been occupied, and oc cupied for the most part in a discussion in which no issue had been raised—in which no challenge had been given to the house; and it was true, on the other hand, that an injury was done both to the revenue and the trade of the country by the prolonged uncertainty consequent on the continuance of these debates. (Hear, hear.) A division then took place on the question. " That this House do now adjourn." For the adjournment Against .... • • • • 233 Majority -88 Colonel DICKSON had watched this debate with much interest. The subject was a very important one, and one on which they could not too long dwell. (Laughter, and " Hear, hear.") He must protest ogainst the appeal made by the Chancellor of the Chancellor when the right hon. gentleman said that it was for the convenience of the State that they 'should close this debate. (Hear, hear.) That was an argument which the - right hon. gentleman had no right to bring forward ; for he should have con sidered all the consequences before he introduced his Budget, which was a most detrimental one to the interests of the country, and me( ially to the interests of Ireland. He begged leave to move the adjournment of the debate. (" Oh! oh!" and " Hear.") Lord PALMERSTON said—lt is useless, I know, to persist (cheers) when gentlemen are determined to prevent measures fl ora being proceeded with at this hour (1 o'clock). As those who t ucceed will be entitled to the glory of the conflict, I beg to second the motion. (Laughter and cheers.) The debate was accordingly adjourned to Thursday next. SUPPLY. The report was brought up aud agreed to. SALMON FISHERIES (SCOTLAND) BILL. In reply to an hon. MEMBER, The LORD-ADVOCATE said, as this was a measure which would require discussion, it was proposed to take it on Thursday week, at a morning sitting. (Loud cries of (" Oh, oh 1") fEDINBURGH ASSESSMENTS BILL. This bill passed through committee. The Landed Property Improvement, &c. (Ireland) Bill was read a second time. The Combination of Parishes Dissolution (Scotland) Bill went through committee. The Markets (Ireland) Bill was read a second time, and ordered to be referred to a select committee. The house adjourned at half-past 1 o'clock. [ADVERTISEMENT.]—Among the numerous extraor dinary cures without medicine effected by Du Barry's deli cious Health Restoring Revalenta Arabica Food, the following deserve notice :—Cure No. 54,318—Mr. James Chapman, of Clunbury, Shropshire, Dec. 22, 1856, of many years sufferings of chronic rheumatism, and complication of nervous diseases. Cure No. 3,906--Mr. J. Porter, of Athol-street, Perth, May 2, 1848, of thirteen years cough, indigestion, and general debility. Cure No. 24,814—The Rev. Thomas Minster, cure of five years nervousness, with spasms and daily vomitings: Cure No. 32,836—0 f the Venerable Archdeacon Alex. Stuart, of Ross, of three years excessive nervousness, with pains in his neck and left arm, and general debility, which rendered his life very miserable. Avoid Pills and 14edicines : they invariably aggravate and perpetuate diseases ; their annoyance, disappointment, and expense may be av o id e d b y us i ng D u Barry's Food which, at a few pence per day, saves 5C times its cost in 9ther remedies, removing effectually, ck .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 FR S Dr Harvey, Dr. Wurzer, Dr. Shorland, Dr. Campell. Let invalids avoid the fearful dangers of spu rious and injuriou 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 Hr‘oper Nevill and his agents ; and the pretences that Nevill has a patent for Arabica Food and that On 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, on theseal and wrapper. Shopkeepers who attempt imposition in one article must expect to be distrusted in all others. Packed in tins lib. 2s. 9d.; 21b. 4s. 6L ; 51b. lls. ; 121 b. 225. ; 241 b. 40s. The 121 b. and 241 b. canisters are cent carriage free on receipt of Post-office order by Barry Du Barry and Co., 77, Re. gent-street, London ; Fortnum Mason, and Co. ; 60, Gracechurch-street ; 4, Cheapside ; 63 and 150, Ox bard -street ; 330 an d 451, Strand ;49 and 60, Bishopsgate ,treet ; Batty, 16, Finsbury Pavement ; Phillips and Co. tea-dealers; Potty, Wood, and Co.. King William-street Citr Qt 127 fliv:h ,•ti All ..roeern UN, L SDAY E BIRIIik MILLES.—On the 11th inst., at Lees Court, Faversham, the Hon. Mrs. Mines, of a son and h e i r . WALKER —On the 13th inst., at Hunsdo n H ouse, Hert fordshire, the wife of Wm. Walker, Esq., of a son. MARIZIAOES COLE—FISHER.- - On the 11th inst., at St. Mary's, Isling ton, Frederick L. Cole, Esq., of Cortapton-t , rrace, 'sling t na, to Marian Lucy, third daughter of Robert Fisher, E s q., of llighbury-park. SEABROOK—HICKMOTT.—On the nth inst., at Bromley St. Leonard's, John Seabrook, to Margaret Sarah, the only daughter of J. J. Hickmott, Esq., of Wellington road, Bromley. DEATHS. the 12th inst James Edward, l e o l w de e s r t .s s t o r n ee o t f , James Edward All en , Esq., of 873 Great aged 31. ANDEILSON.—On the 11th inst., at 2, Hamilton -terrace, St. John's-wood, G. W. Anderson, Esq., aged 62. DICRIN.—On the 11th inst., in Finsbury-circus, George Dickin, Esq., of Queen-street, Cheapslde, aged 83. LONDON : Printed and rublished by MURDO YOUNG, of No. 112, Strand, Printer, at TPIE . SuN Other, No. 112,Strand, in the Precinct of the Savoy, 1.11 the County of Middlesex Tues clay, May 14, 1861.