The Daily Times.
Liverpool, Merseyside, England, 1860-05-12 00:00:00

tHE DAY'S NEWS.

The declaration of-,Lord Derby, in the House
of Dirds, on Thursday night, that " no exertions
on his part should be wanting in order to induce
their lordships not to agree to the aboliti m of
the paper duty," coupled with the fact of Lord
Monteagle, an old Whig, having given notice
that when the measure came on for second read:-
ing he should move that it be read a second time
that day -six months, appears to have created no
slight anxiety and apprehension in Ministerial
citele%—.And no wonder.. The ground of opposi-
tiOn, in both cases, no doubt the' same, since it
is! one that- can be quite consistently taken in.
bdth..Lord. Derby had just consented to the
Se6orid reading of the Custonis Bill,—though he
did not, he said, acquiesce in or approve of the
arrangements under the French Ariaty, which he
considered were both dangerous and inequitable,
that .the. proper time to discuss the
financial arrangements of 'the Government would
be when :thei. mine to discuss the proposed
amendment on the Paper Duty Abolition Bill, as
he considecrect the rejection of that till Would not
embarrass. Government nor prejudice the course-
of business; but would.improve their financial
arrangements. Such a couise as this is hest
and straightforward, and presents a striking con-
trast to, that - which Present nieri hi office
pursued when they raised a cabal against Lord
Derby's' Administration.. If it ,be true;that the
present Coalition Cabinet will stake its official
existence upon the passing of that Bill, there
would seem to be every probability of that. exis-
tenee,leing shortly terminated,—more especially
al it is well understood that the. Cabinet, fropi
internal ,dissensions; the most natural in the
world in such a case,,is already in a verY.rictettY
state. The idea we see expressed, that " the
COnservatives are not in "a cOnditiOn to take
office," is only another instance of the wish being
father to the thOught. : The Conservatives
are not only in a condition to take office, should
their service's be demanded, but they form the
only party that would have any chance of con-
ducting the Oovernthent of the country upon
really constitutional: Priti6iples; ttlid therefore
with perfect safety to the kingdom, and with real
advantage to the people.

One very short and 'decisive way of saving the
Bill for,the repeal of the paper duty, is suggested
by the ultra-Liberal journal that is in the.immedi
ate interest of Mr. Bright and his party. It is
asserted "that' for one hundred and My years
past—we believe we might say that, since the
Revolution, the House of Lords has never been
allowed to originate r taX, dr id aitef a sill
passed for' the raising of the public revenue,"--
that for ..this long period " the Commons have
invariably asqertvd and maintained their privi-
lege in this branch of our legislation; and with-,
out this privilege, sacred and inviolate, all control
of. the, people over :than taxes they contribute
would be gone for ever.".. And the question is
therefore asked; "If the Lords taffriot originate
a tax, or filter a Bill dealiii with ta±dtitirl; Can
they, without a flagrant violation of the pritt;
lees of the Commons continue a tax which the
House of Commons has condemned ? Most
certainly they can,—so long as to discontinue
tak requires the..authority. of an Act of Paths,-
ment. No Act of Parliament is ; valid, for any
*pose whatever, that does not pasShoth Rouses
of Parliament;., anct receive the Royal. Assent.
One would
,haVe thotiglit ilia any seltool boy:
knew this. The object of Abt of Parliament
being to "continue a tax which the house of
Commons has condenaned;" makes no difference.
Why sttould it proceeding is ogle if legis-
lation ;• and there can, constitutionally, be no
legislation in which all the. Thee Estates of the
'Realm—Often, Lords, and Comnions----do' not
unite. It is all very fine to
,tall allodt " Violation
of the privileges of the Howie of Commons ;" but
hats not the •House of Lords its priVilegei also ?
Of course, on no .account, or on any, occasion,
mast the
_rightful_ privileges of. 'the House of
COmmons be violated., But neither must the
privileges of the House of Lords,—one of which
privileges most undoubtedly is to reject any bill
which the Commons may send up for the House
to concur in, if a majority of them think proper
so. to do. This is their most unquestionable con-
stitutional privilege. Otherwise, why is the 'bill
submitted to them at all,—why are they asked, to
read it a first, second, and third time, but that
they may exercise their. independent judgment
upon it? No-,the, House .of. Commons has, as
yet, no such exclusive legislative privilege as,the
Republican party would—not on this occasion
only, but many other, occasions=--like to secure
for it. The Lords, it is true, cannot originate a
ax, or alter -.a. money hill., ,But they can refuse
to pass any bill that is submitted for their concur-
rence. And it is their judicious and patriotic
e;ercise of this constitutional power that has so
frequently offered occasion for the peOple of
Eilgland to exclaim—" Thank God we have a
House- otliordS, !"
We are told that "the Opposition would seem
to be of opinion that, the Government is weak."
Ought it to be otherwise ? Or is it, in reason,
to be expected that any apparent coherence of
such incongruous materials as the Government is
:composed of can be anything but. temporary ?
The present Government was formed under a vile