The Express.
London, England, 1860-07-06 00:00:00

AtirE
,IRNMSS, FRIDAY EVENING, JULY_ 6, 1860.

that those resolutions are fitted for the ootaMas at the pre-
sent moment. I think they declare what oar coostitutiowl
rights and functions are—right. and functions which are
I interwoven, I may esy, with the whole history of the aim.
try .which no mac can deny, and which will not be denied,
I will venture to say, by any single individual either in
I the houses of parliament or in any other part of theeountry—
I I think thew resolutions sufficiently establish our right.
They point out that, if that right should be invaded, we
have in our own hands the means of refuting that inn-
sion. I think it would not have been becoming, on an coo-
cashes on which there was an appearance, at all events, of
as intention to invade our functions, it would not have
been right or decent for this house to remain absolutely
silent That might have been construed into a yielding, a
oincession of the rights and functions which we oughtto
Alp ie our own hands. On the other band, I think we
should not hare raised ourselves in public estimation,
j and I do not think we should have done anything towards
effectually maintaining our rights, if we had thrown into
these resolutions anything that might appear
,to be the
commencement of hostilities with theatre branch of the
lerialeture. It is of the utmost importune@ that as in our
cssustitution there are dillereot branches, independent of
tech other, each with pewees of Its eau, but the harmo-
nious action of who...pewees is aecessiary to the working of
the constitution—it is deMehle not to commence an
unuecessary quarreL Trheal=aswyhilek does that would
incur. I think, a grave . will not believe
that it was the intention the Housed Lords to do so.
siome nos hint that I entertain too favourable a view w
regards that. (" Hear, Mar," from below the gangway.)
I state what I think about it, and I say that if we have not
prof sufileient to sandy us that this was the first step
towards • new course of constitutional conduct, we had
better pursue the course which is now recommended
to the adoption of the house. I think that course
is dignified I think it will be effectual. I am
convinced in my own mind that these resolutions
going forth from this house will be a sufficient
warning to guard against any recurrence for the future of
that to which we most justly take objection. We are not
prepared to undo that which has been does. If it were in
ordinary times, under ordinary circumstances, we should
have advised this house to page again that bill which was
rejected in the other house, to return it to them, and to
have obstructed ell other business till it was passed ; to have
exercised all those powers which we had in our own
hands, and to have rendered it necemary for the
other house of parliament to have pawed that
bill. But the circumstances of the moment do sot
make that course of action a convenient one. (A laugh.)
That being so, I my that unless we had felt at liberty to
have returned that bill in some shape or other, and to have
insisted now, and in this session, on the repeal of that pull-
cuter duty, it is more dignified of the house to take the
course which it is my duty to propose. I would only, in
conclusion, urge on the two houses of parliament that advice
which a great authority on parliamentary matter. (Mr.
Flateell) has embodied in two pages of his work. After
mentioning • aeries of transactions which he has quoted, he
thus :—" I would say to the Lords, that from the
Eifirtor.:sof all these transactions the conclusion to be drawn
is that it &add be the endeavour of both houses, and of
every member of each house of parliament, to take care in
their proceedings not to transgress those boundaries which
the constitution has wisely allotted to them, or to interfere
in those matters which, by the rules and practice of parlia-
ment in former ages, are not within their jurisdiction ; for
the rights and privilege* of parliament are interwoven
with the earliest establishment of government in this
country." Sir I would recommend that wage to the con-
sidenstion of the Lords. (Cheers and laughter.) To the House
of Commune, I would venture to at another passage
front the same author. He says: "The sole and exclusive
right of beginning all aids and charges on the public, and
not suffering any alteration to be made by the Lord% is rut
ficientiv guarded by the practice of the house here ex.
premed, and it does not seam to be either for their honour
or advantage to push the matter further, and by asserting
privileges which might be subject to doubt and discussion,
thereby to weaken their claim to those clear and in-
dubitable rights which are vested in them by the
constitution, and have been confirmed to them by
the constant and uniform practice of parliament.
To refuse to the House of Lords the abstract right of dis-
aentiug would bring us under the censure of that passage.
I d s not believe the house would be disposed to follow up
that course. lam inclined to think that this house values
that harmony which is so essential between the two
branches of the legislature for the management of the
affairs of the country. And if that must st all times be,
a it ought to be, the ruling and guiding feeling of this
house. I am sure that there is nothing m the premed aspen
of affairs out of England, there is nothing in the general
aspect of the affairs of Europe and the world, which would
lead this house to think more lightly tbaa mod of hold-
ing up to foreign nations the lamentable and humiliating
spectacle of a disunited legisletere—of • divided people—of
an internal contest—at a time when it is essential for the
Ilihttlketribihr toourlllandthientewro'Atd oafs theh countrywoio th
unat
we
action—aoo-operation of all the estates of the realm for the
commoninterest and welfare of the people. (Loud cheers)
Mr. COLLIER stated that as it was the desire of
member. in that part of the house to come to a
unanimous vote upon the subject, he should not mem
the amendment of which he had given notice, to
the effect that the rejection by the Lords of • bill
repealing • tax deemed by the Commons unnecessary to
mist the supply for the services of the year was opposed
to the long.seahlaked constitutional usage which had rega-
-1 latest the functions of the two houses. The hon. and
learned gentleman, however, proceeded to address the
1 house at considerable length in support of the opinion
enunciated in his notice. He contended that the vote
of the House of Lords was opposed to constitutional
usage, end to the tacit underitansling which regulated the
proceedings of the two houses, without which the consti-
tution could not work. He argued this position upon prin-
ciple and authority, and, after a minute examivation of the
precedent. reported by the select committee, he contended
that not one of them was at all applicable to the present
case ; that it did not appear that the House of Lords had
ever rejected any bill imposing or repealing a tax on purely
financial grounds. He suggested the serious consequences
of this new power assumed by the House of Lords,
who.* sanction henceforward would be requires' after
the budget had been settled by the Common..
Those oaly aequainted with mercantile affairs could estimate
the amount of confusion which wow from • postponement
of the settlement of the budget. If in future every budget
to bed undergo the second ordeal of the House of
very great disturbance in the commercial relations of the
country, and very great confusion must ensue. (Hear,
hear.) Merchants would be no longer enabled to act
before the passing of financial resolution by that house.
If the House of Lords were to be in poseciesson of
this power they must be furnished with estimates
upon each subject—estimates which, be it remembered,
they had very many times applied for, hut which had
always been refused to them. On one of these occasions
Mr. Pitt, with great complaisance, but with great firnmesa,
bed withheld them. For the future, however, estimates
must be laid before the House of Lords. It might even be
convenient that the Chancellor of the Exchequer should sit
in the House of Lords—l" hear." and laughter) —and that
the budget should be introduced by &secretary of state. It
appeared to him (Mr. Collier) that this vote of the Home
of Lords, though legally and technically right, would
be productive of more confusion and disturbance to
the constitutional proceedings of that home than
any other proceeding which could have taken place. Ile
trusted and believed that the noble viscount was quite right
in supposing that the House of Lords would not persevere
further in this course, but it was necessary that the House
of Comm.= should take care that the House of Lords
should not linable todoso—(cheers)—by, if it wereneceseary,
altering the course of is own proceedings ; and the y
necessity under which the House of Commons WY Mateverd of
considering whether or not they ought to alter than, was II
conclusive proof of the irregularite of the course which had
been pursued. (('heers.) He believed that a peat impossibility
was thrown upon the House of Conunona. (Hear, hear) It
had been said Chad the country was apathetic, but he ha-
-1 Invest that the country was not so stupid as had ben
imagined ; and that it could perfectly distinguish between
a financial question and • constitutional right. Nothing
could be more distinct than a financial question and • con-
stitutional right, and even if the House of Lords were
right financially—(cheers, and coluster-clusen)—there was
more danger, the precedent was all the more dangerous
because the country might be induced to accept what they
deemed to be a benefit at the expense of a future in-
jury. (Loud cheers., His was 'Wished that the eyes of the
country were upon that house, and that they were bound
to weigh well what they dial. They had rejected the Re-
form bill. (" No, no, from the Opposition.) They had
virtually rejected it, and they hurl thereby refused an ex-
tension of popular rights. at remained to be seen how far
thine to whom an extension of popular rights had been
promised by hon. gentlemen who sat upon that (Mr. Col-
her's) aids of the house would be satisfied. But if in suldi-
tion to refolieg these right. they now showed themselves
inclined to absedou the rights which they possessed as
representative@ of the people—if they showed themselves
to be remise or careless guardians of those rights—they
would entirely and irrevocably forfeit the confidence of the
country—(cheer)—end that forfeiture would, more
than anything else, give an impetus to that
democratic and- dangerous reform, which was dreaded by
all who valued oar constitutional liberties. (Cheers.) Let
them not forfeit the exclusive right of taxation, which was
the lifeblood of parliament, the vital element of the con-
stitution ; and should the time ever arrive—might it be fee
distant—when the House of Commons should relinquish its
control of the finances, or bate one jot of its sole privilege
of taxation, from that day would date the destruction of
the independence of the Commons of Englund. (Loud
cheering
Mr. CONINGHAM said he doubted whether the country
would receive the speech of the noble viscount in the same
manner as the opposition benches had done. The determi-
nation at which the government had arrived, to place •
mere dry and idle record upon the journals of the home,
must prove fatal to it. No government could last under
the contempt it must receive from the country at large.
(Ironical cheers.) The noble viscount had stood forward as
the champion of the rights and privileges of the peers, in-
stead of the Commons. (No, no.) He seemed to forget
that ewer. word which he uttered in palliation of the other
Immo( paliament was really a censure upon the colleague
who ..'moss le him.
Mr.
_V. SCI'LLY said that. although he had listened
with &dainties to the speech of the Imo. and leaped Melt,
11, Cr elyrnoeth. na an expositiou of constitutional law, he
e•ea:d net agree with the conelasiorm at which the hon. and
learned ameba had arrived with roped to the resolutions

• .-,

before the bows. He regarded those resolutions as being
all which the house could do at the present a of its pro-
restage. He did not receive them at all se stud calcium*,
they might be the initiation of a stronger andboldercoune.
Mr. LRATHAM said that, although hon. gentlemen op
. posits had not expressed their opine:es, it was impossible to
isimeonstrue the chase and counter-cheers from those
hatches. This passed the experience of the occult policy of
' ems hon. gentlemen opposite. Whet did they propose!
Wee it still further to humiliate the house in the eyes of
the country ? Surely they bad bed enough of that in the
present session. Did they suppose that the debate on the
Reform Bill had tended to raise the house in public estima-
tion, or that the oblique means to which they had had
recourse to defeat it had inspired their constituent' with
any exalted idea either of the dignity of the house or the
deeerity of hon. gentlemen! If any feeling wee more
cesanouly expressed than another in the press it
was the growing conviction of all classes that that
house was becoming contemptible. (Ironical cheers.) The
noble viscount hail recommended inaction and forbearance.
But were they the representatives of a people who were
intolerant of insult, or of a people who licked the hand that
smote them! He hoped that the house would not relin-
quish de undoubted privilege, unless hon. members wished
to seethe mane, the emblem of their dignity, again taken
away a a bauble. (Hear, heir.)

Mr. B. OSBORNE said that with all due submission to
the house in general, he could not help thinking that they
cut a very humiliating figure. (Cheers.) The resolutions
were certainly not 'sickbed o'er with the pale cast of
thought ;" and the noble viscount had made a spescb,which
if it meant scything at all, was a defence of the Hones of
Lords, and nothing more than an attack upon his own minis-
ter. (Hear, hear.) The speech of the boo. and learned
gentleman (Mr. Collier) had done credit to him as a lawyer,
and honour to him as a statesman. (Hear, hear.) He had
expected that some member on the other side would at least
have paid him the compliment of attempting to
answer that lucid and conclusive speech—a speech
which had exhausted the argument on that side of the home.
(Hear, hear.) But he lamented that all the research which
the hon. and learned gentleman had displayed, and all the
painstaking labour which he had evidently given to the
subject, were followed by no conclusion.

E. JAM said he was not surprised that hon. pa-
tlemen opposite had taken no part in the discussion, afters.'
the speech that had been delivered by the noble viloorrat.
He agreed with the last speaker, that the resolutions WWII
not sickbed o'er with the pale cast of thought," and
said that he might very aptly have pursued the quotation:
" Thus enterprises of great pith sod moment,
With this regard, their currents turn awry,
And lose the lame of action."
(Cheers.) A most lame sod impotent conchae had been
drawn by the noble lord from his resolutions. As the leader
of the house, he ought to have come forward as the vin-
dicator of its rights, privileges, and dimity. Its hamar
was confided to his keeping. Mr. Pitt had 110110 on on the
occasion referred to; and in the more recent case of
"Stec-Wale v. Hansard" the noble lord (Russell), then the
leader of the house, had come forward and asserted its pri-
vilegee. The resolutions appeared to him to be a poor and
paltry compromise of opinions in the cabinet, and not calcu-
lated to secure a higher tons or • sounder policy.
Lie_ireed in the meed of approbation which had been
by the hon. member for Liakeard oe the speech of
i=n. and learned friend. (Hear, hear.) His hon sod
teemed friend exhausted the whole subject. (Hear, hear.)
He should himself withdraw the motion of which he had
given notice, because be wished to throw the whole respon-
sibility in this matter on the government, who were bound
to vindicate—but who bad in the moat gamy manner
attempted to vindicate—the privileges of the house.
(Hear, hew.) This was no question of peaty politics, or of
policy ; it was • far deeper and more vital ques-
tion-one in comparison with which party politics sank
into utter insignificance. (Hear, hear.) It was on
financiallquestione that the tattle of the liberties of
the House of Commons had been fought. Speakers and
writers of the greatest eminence had struggled and had
suffered for that cause ; and hereafter, when these events
were to be history, would they have it recorded of them that
they had borne with impunity this usurpation of the House
of Lords, that they had permitted this stretch of prero-
gative to become usurpation, and that they had patiently
enclosed each usurpation? (Hear, hear.)
The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER compli-
mented the opposition on their prudent silence, when they
were in reality the partisans of • gigantic innovation, the
most gigantic which hail been attempted in their time.
There were two modem of proceeding—either by words or
action. If the former, the resolutions of the government,
into which be heartily entered, were good and sufficient.
But he reserved to himself the power of adopting • more
active course if he saw fit so to act hereafter. Amidst all
the instances adduced, there was not one which showed a
shred or • rag of precedent in favour of the course now
adopted by the Lords. The privileges of the Com-
mons were the cloak by which they covered their real
tilers. Those privileges had never been directly admitted
the other house—it had only acquiesced in silence. The
c of the two houses were virtually at variances and it
was only by tacit forbearance that peace between .them
had continued unbroken for 200 years. But the principle
of both was hitherto the same—that the taxing power
should remain inviolate with the House of Commons;
bat that under cover of • taxing bill no measure of
czal import should be forced upon the House of
This was the spirit of former precedenta, which
were directly at variance with the course pursued
by the Lords on the present occasion. The ques-
tion remained with the house, whether its own
essential functions were to be maintained or not. The
amount of the paper duty would be exceedingly welcome if
honestly gut. But there were things more valuable than money,
and one of these was the retention of the taxing power by
the House of Commons. There was not • single instance
where the Lords had attempted to limit or hamper the
financial proceedings of the Commons, or to arrest the
financial action of the country. It was not the question
whether the House of Commons had committed an error;
but whether the Lords had the right to review and to comic
that error. The Lords had never, upon former occasions, be-
lieved themselves charged with an, such responsibility. On
the contrary, they had foregone any such claim at junctures
more critical than the present. In selecting the paper duty
for repeal in preference to the tea or sugar duties, the go-
vernment had deliberately made their election in favour of
the course which they thought to be most beneficial, rather
than that which they knew to be most popular. The temp-
tation was thus afforded to the peers to interfere with •
financial mowers in a manner which had been unprecedented
for at least two couturier'. The example was fraught with
the most injurious consequences. It would warn all future
finance ministers to cultivate popularity, and postpone the
measure which he believed to be right to those
which seemed at the moment to be expedient. I keep
to my pledge (said the right hon. gentleman, in conclusion)
not to enter into details of precedents, because if a challenge
of precedents should come from the other side to show that
the House of Lords had ever attempted before to take into
their own hands to fix the functions of the House of Com-
mons with inspect to taxation, we shall have other oppor-
tunities for meeting and contenting those allegations. (Hear,
hear.) I content myself at present with saying that there
is no colour of precedent for their proceedings. (Hear.)
This is • matter of great ins . (Hear, hear.) Since
1815, there had been 78,000,0001. of taxes repealed. All the
bills for the repeal of those taxes, had been accepted by the
House of Lords from the Hoene of Commons upon the
responsibility of the Commons ; and now, when we come to
the seventy.ninth million, the House of Lords thinks fit to
establish • new precedent. (Hear, bear.) Fur my part I
cannot but think that this is a time in which men are little
disposed to deal with abstract principles ; and that those
assertions which our forefathers made of their rights, we
now think one of little value compared with obtaining •
few hundred thousands of pounds. (Hear.) But I meet
confess I cannot bring my mind to take that view. I view
the whole rights of the House of Commons as they
have been handed down to us as constituting • sacred
inheritance, upon which I for my part will never permit
• intrusion or plunder. (Hear, hear.) I think that
anterior to the duty of dealing with all other legislative
duties, our first duty is to take care that we maintain intact
that precious deposit. (Hear, hear.) I concur iu every
word of my noble friend's resolutions, which declare that
we have in our heeds the means of maintaining it inviolate.
(Hear, hear.) We have in our hands the means of framing
bills of supply as solely belonging to the rights of the
House of Common.. I respectfully reserve to myself the
freedom of acting in the best way to give effect by practical
measures to the principles which I maintain. (The right
lion. gentleman rammed his seat amidst loud Aeons.)
Mr. WHITESIDE,in reply to the taunt of the Chancellor
of the Exchequer, observed that the ..peech of Lord
Palmerston was such as became the first minister of the
country, and sdmitting, as it did, distinctly and emphati-
cally, the right of the House of Lords to resist the repeal
of a tax, the speech was satisfactory to the opposition
side of the house. If the act of the Lords was •
gigantic innovation on the constitution, as alleged by Mr.
Liladatone why did he not meet the invasion of their privi-
leges by action! He maintained that the act was sanc-
tioned by the constitution and the law of the land, and its
principle by the precedents cited by the committee. He
amused the Chancellor of the Exchequer of making an
attack upon the constitution, and if it was deiired to strip
the House of Lords of the right they had exeruisod, he
asked • decision of the question whether we wore to continue
to live under that constitution, or whether it was to be
revolutionised.

Lord FERMOY called upon the Chancellor of the
Exchequer, when the resolutions were mimed, to carry
into effect the principles which he had laid down, and
to moist the :4:tic innovation" made by the Lords
upon the pri of the Commas. Whether the
right hon. gent eman was In or oat of otficso he
believed he would be prepared to vindicate those princi es—
(ironical cheers from die opposition)—end he would to l him
on the part both of a large number of members in that house,
and of the great body of the people out of doors, that if he
was prepared to lead them they were ready to follow.
Mr. DILLWYN said the resolutions which were pro-
poeed seemed to him to be like the preamble of a bill
without any clauses attached to it. Although he regretted
that the resolutions now proposed were nut more practical,
he would give them his support, and he thanked the Chan.
color of the Exchequer fur the amuranoe that some
Maas of giving effect to them should hereafter be provided.
Sir J. TlinAW NY said be was not unwilling to
protract this debate, because the importance of the matters
involved in it was such that a debate of ten or twelve days
would scarcely be longer than the subject deserved. He
would not sumer% the resolutions, forhe would be so party
to such a fut 4 impotent, and miserable course of conduct.

If they really did feel that ats:e:llaiilicen7 had
been committed, the House of COMMONS is eel. But
they were afraid to act, because the/ bed set sought to
ensure the support of the people. an. geetlenese ea both
sides of the house this session had said soil acme everything
tie, could to insult the working clams. Gall* them
hellish, weak and pasnooato, and bad • sled whilst they
were conscious of having thus thrown o'vertiesrd the work.
tag dares, and having refused to give them the franchise,
hen. gentlemen shunned the responsibility of con-
fronting the other house of parliament in defence
of the constitution of the country.
Mr. .1. L RICARDO said that he could not accept the
resolutions of the noble lord as any settlement of the ques-
tion. These resolutions settled nothing, and they explained
nothing ; but they also prevented nothing, and he antici-
pated that some other resolutions would be placed before
the house, to give them an opportunity of expressing their
opinion on this great constitutional question, which the
resolutions now proposed would not prevent ; he was,
therefore, willing to agree to them. The noble lord's ob-
ject had been to pass over the difficulty as quietly as pos-
sible, but it was not to be so over, and the laboured
apology for the House of Lords, which the Prime Minister,
in order to calm down the affair, had uttered that evening,
would not preclude the House of Commons from agree and
bonnet discurion of the subject.
Sir C. DOUGLAS felt that although the resolutions were
inadequate, it was very difficult to frame a satisfactory
amendment, and the one which he himself had attempted to
frame did not meet with general concurrence. The question
resolved itself into two points ; one was for the considera-
tion of the government, as to the paper duties, but the other
was for the consideration of the House of Commons, whe-
ther their privileges had been violated. If this latter ques-
tion were to be answered in the affirmative, it would he
beneath them to be satisfied without taking some action
to vindicate their privileges. He would have the recom-
mendation of Mr. Walpole's report adopted, and a standing
order muds that in future who bill for the purpose
of remitting taxation was brought in, it should be incorpo-
rated in a hal of supply or appropriation.

Mr. I. BUTT said that the subject then under debate
was one of the most important that had ever corns before
them. The resolutions he could not accept as leading to
the oonclusiou which had been indicated. It was becausg
he thought that further action would be taken upon these
resolutions that he was willing to vote for them.
Sir J. SHELLEY said there was one thing that struck
him as most extraordinary, and which he thought would be
looked upon as extraordinary hereafter, that though this
debate was on a subject of peculiar interest, yet so far ea
they bad gone, only one member of her Majesty's opposition
had condescended to give them an opinion on the subject.
And he must say he was much obliged to that right 110111.
gentleman for one portion of his speech, in which he stated
that the course which the Howie of Lords had taken was, in
=ceof fact, intended to be • censure on the policy of the
minister. That was proving the case of that (the
ministerial) side of the house, that the House of Lords had
ggroanoss beyond their powers in so doing. He (Sir J. Shelley)
believed that if they were to stop at these resolutions they
should disappoint the just expectaticas of people out of
doors. He had nothing to do as • member of the liberal
party with the withdrawal of the amendment of the hon.
member for Plymouth (Mr. Collier). He was exceedingly
shocked to find, after the hon. member had so dearly proved
his case, that he did not intend to press his amendment.
Mr. STANSFELD said no policy was more difficult to
meet than that which had been sometimes called • masterly
inaction, and that masterly inaction of the opposition benches
to-night put him and others in a practical difficulty,
for it was no easy matter for them to rise up
one after another to repeat the same tale, and to put the
same construction upon the course which had been taken by
the Home of Lords. It was impossible to mistake the
nature of the claim of the Lords by the rejection of this
bill—they claimed to revise the budget and the estimates,
which were not submitted to them, and to indefinitely in-
crease the supplies not asked for by the crown. (Hier.)
The noble lord who moved the resolutions had told the house
that there was no evidence that the Lords would erect this
act of theirs into a precedent ; but he (Mr. Stansfelcil was
prepared to state that there was evidence that the Lords
would make the precedent have a wider meaning than the
set itself. (Hear, hear.) For instance, it was said that the
rights which the Lords had conceded in past times to this
house had been conceded not as • constitutional right, but
to superior fore. Therefore the House of Lords had repu-
diated the concessions made to this house. The claim of the
Lords amounted to not merely the perpetuating of • tax
against the consent of the people, but to •ro claim to
tax not required by the crown. This
perpetuate a
had the power of refusing properly such
supply, and had the power of refusing to touch stolen goods.
(Hear, hear.) Could the house assent to the claim of that
description on the part of the Lords ? He thought not.
The rights which they exercised in that house were not
their own—(hear)—hut they were the rights of the true
commons—of the people of this country. (Hear, hear.)
They were merely representatives, and without the people
they. would have no being, and their rights it was their
venal function to maintain and defend. (Hear, hear.)
The house had already rejected the Reform Bill, saying it
was not needed by the country, a. the house already repre-
sented the intelligence and property of the country. It
might be said that this was • parliament elected under •
degraded suffrage, and what would become of
their independence if they eurrendered those rights
which had been maintained for centuries' (Hear, hear.)
A short time ago • minister of the crown announced the
withdrawal of a measure of parliamentary reform, and an
admirable discipline, of which they had witnessed an ex-
ample that night—(hear hear)—restrained the rising cheer
in the ranks of her Majesty's opposition; but those who
watched the scene might have noticed a smile of peculiar
intelligence sweep like • sunbeam over the sea of feces
opposite. A party ruse had been successful ; but what •
triumph, and at what • most 1 He marvelled at the thought-
lemmas of a conservative policy which could postpone the
gneetion of reform for those more troublous times of which
the conservative leaders were loudest to herald the approach,
and could purchases temporary sum= at the cost of lower-
ing the character of that house for earnisitneei and sincerity,
(Cheers.) Were they on the present occasion going to have
a repetition of the *lime policy'. Were they again going
to purchase the shortlived triumph of some special financial
view, or the gratification of some passing per anal reaction,
by the surrender of the rights and privileges of the people!
He trusted not. Ho hoped the house would cast aside all
party considerations, and all considerations ohruinor impor-
ters., in order that it might

" Rise to the height of this great argument."
(Cheers.) Let them remember that they were that
night making history—that they were about to maintain
or give up the rights of the oldest, the freest,
and the greatest representative assembly in the world.
(Cheers.) The precedent of 1860, whether they would or no
--whether for good or for ill—whether to their honour or
their shame—was about to take its place on the historic
page by the side of those older and greater precedents which
had been laid before them, and which were the laurels and
traditions of the past. (Cheers.) He entreated the house so to
act as not to tarnish those laurels, so to act as to be faith-
ful to those traditions ; so to act as to reassert and defend
the rights Mille people ; so to act Allto extend the privileges
and to ahem:* the -character and dignity of that house.
(Loud cheers.)
Mr. DISRAELI—Sir, I am nnwillingto allow this debate
to close without expressing to the noble lord the First
Minister of the Crown, both on the part of myself and I am
sure of all the hon. members who sit on this side of the
house, our some of the patriotic speech—(loud &send—
with which he introduced his resolutions to our considera-
tion. When the hon. gentleman who has just sat down
calls upon us to consider this question without party spilt ;
and when he urges us to "rise to the height of this great
argument," I am grateful that it falls to my lot iu the
first sentence which I presume to utter, to offer to a minis-
ter of the crown whose general policy I oppose, the sincere
tribute of my adhesion on this occasion. (Loud cheers.)
Sir, when the real privileges of this house are assailed or
questioned, I can tell the noble lord that if he should then
he leader of this house be will not appeal to us in vain to
uphold and support him in their vindication ; and that if
there should be any attempt in the coarse of the pro-
ceedings of the two houses to raise up some artificial
agitation—(cheers)—occasioned, perhaps, by the neces-
sity of soothing the wounded vanity or gratifying the
distempered ambition of some individual—(great cheering)
—the noble lord, the First Minister, under such circum-
stances, may with the 011110 success appeal to us to sup-
port him in that cows, which we believe is necessary
for the welfare of the country. (Cheers.) The noble lord
has to-night acknowledged, and but for the circumstances
which have since occurred, I should have said, has edition.-
hedged on the part of her Majesty's government, that the
course pursued by the House of Lords with reference to the
bill for the repeal of the paper duties was one that the
state of the law justified and authorized them in taking. Now
if the laws of this country justify and authorise the con-
duct of that house of parliament there is at once an end to
any question as to the privileges of this house. A privilege
that cannot be asserted ceases to be a privilege, and be-
comes only a pretence. (Cheers.) Those who remember
what occurred twenty years ago, when this house attempted
to assert a privilege which was contrary to the law of the
country, will not, I think, with any hope of
summit, counsel this house to follow a course replete
with such disaster, and so humiliating to the dignity of this
assembly. (Cheers.) But, sir, the First Minister was not
content with merely acknowledging that the conduct of the
House of Lords was justified by law. No, sir, the noble
lord lies manfully vinager, that it was not only justified by
law but was sanctioned by policy. (Loud cheers.) But as
conduct which is justified by law and sanctioned by policy
—is that the ground and basis open which you are
calling upon us to declare that our pnvileges are
violated and our due authority questioned! (Cheers.)
If the privileges of the House of Commons can
only he vindicated by opposing that which the
laws justify, and which polio,' sanctions, I fear that
we or, hardly recommend to our constituents the character
and the privileges of this home for the support which the
hon. gentleman who hes just spoken contemplates. (Hear.)
After an examination of the three resolutions in connexion
with the financial policy of the government, the right hon.
gentleman declared that he saw nothing to object to in
them; they embodied, he said, his own views; sad
he complained that he and his party shmild be
exposed to an attack from the Chancellor of UM
Rzehequer bemuse they supported her Majesty%
government. The right honourable gentleman talked of
the vote of the Lords being • gigantic and dangerous inno-
vation, but the chief of the government had admitted that
the House of Lords had acted in • manner that the law
justified and policy eaectiotied, as well an in perfect con-

socanee with precedents. It was true that the right hon.
gentleman had intimated that he should give the resolutions
his support, but that was because he took them, as he had
taken many other things before, in a " non-natural sense."
If the resolutions vindicated the privileges of the Commons,
even though they asserted more than weld he practically
maintained, it would be nowise to alter language of which
the popular interpretation was favourable to the main-
tenanoe of the just privileges of the house, at the same
time that it admitted the power of the Lords to reject
money bills, than which he bad never claimed any other for
them. He admitted that they had not the power of origi-
nating or altering money bills; but the power of rejecting them
must be theirs, or the constitution of England must be
instantly chsoged. The right hon. gentleman continued—
We have heard this session very much of new principles of
Nation. New principles of taxation have been ream-
mended in my mind of very dangerous importance, but
which fortunately for thin country will not be submitted to
a new parliament, elected by • new and inexperienced con-
stituency. (Hear, hear. But if new principles of taxation
ever come into fashion, I will suppose fur a moment this
house pawing a money bill which will tax at a very high
rate the estates of the House of Lords. Are we to main-
tain that the House of Lords is not to have the power of
rejecting that money bill? A bill might par this
house peculiarly and solely charging the estates of the
House of Lords,—for such hills bale panned this house
before—(hear, hear) ;—and we are now told that we are to
lay down as the privileges of this house that the House of
Lords is to be deprived of that last defence and only
security against unjust taxation. (Hear, hear.) The sewed
resolution, distinctly acknowledging the right of the Hone
of Lords to reject money bills, is • resolution which we as a
conservative party ought to support • and the third resolu-
tion, though it may be mainly and necessarily, from the
nature of the subject, more express, contains no intimation
of any other than • constitutional course with respect
to fiscal subjects. That being the nature of the three nee-
lotions, is it not our duty cheerfully to support the
minister who has proposed them, and who has made the
proposition in a spirit equal to the occasion, and free from
an party bias! (Hear, hear.) If the policy which many
hon. gentlemen opposite recommend were pursued, the
critical influence of senates on finance would entirely cease ;
and it becomes important to consider whether such a prin-
ciple is in harmony with our constitution, and might not be
extremely injurious to the public welfare. The hoe.
member for Birmingham was reminded io the course of this
debate that the senate of America has the power, not only
of rejecting, but of altering and amending money bills ; and
he said across the table : "But the senate of the United
States is elective." If it be advisable that some
control, modified and well fenced in as it is
by the privileges of this house, should be ex-
ercised by what we may call the senate of
this country upon the popular branch of the legislature
with regard to monetary affairs—if it be the essence of
wisdom that there should be some check upon intem-
perate and unjust resolutions and policy in matters of taxa-
tion—if that be admitted, are we to conclude that that con-
trol can only be entrusted to • senate that is elective ?
Then the hon. gentleman and his friends are changing the
issue before us ; and what we really have to consider is, if
we have a senate, whether it shall be elective or hereditary.
Now. I am in favour of maintaining the hereditary
senate of this country. (Hear, hear.) I would
not entrust the enlarged 'wee which he senate of America
=1.84t0 any elective y.. What control the House of
possesees in matters of finance I wish them to poser
as an hereditary body guarding ourselves against any undue
and unwise exercaaeof that power by the privileges of the
House of Commons—privileges that will be acknowledged
for centuries, sod which, whenever assailed, we find our-
selves able to uphold. end defend. (Hear, bear.) The test
of • privilege is that it can be asserted. The other night
the hon. member for Birmingham said he did not know
what was meant by Americanising the institutions of this
country. To-night he has explained it. It is a senate elec-
tive, not hereditary. I trust that the house
will, by supporting the government in the course they have
taken, prove that they are prepared, not only to uphold the
privileges of this house, but to uphold the rights of all the
estates of the realm, which the constitution has hitherto
acknowledged, and under which this country has so
eminently nourished. (Cheers.)
Lord J. Rums= and Mr. Hammr rose at the same time,
and both continued for a few momenta to attempt to address
the house. There were loud calls for " Bright ;" but the
Speaker decided that Lord J. Russell was in possession of
the house.

Mr. BRIGHT said he had merely risen to move the ad-
journment of the debate.
Lord J. RUSSELL, while he expressed his gratitude to
Mr. Disraeli for the rapport be had given to the government,
desired to vindicate Lord Palmerston from the interpretation
which he had put upon his speech, had
which the words
would not bear. Lord Palmerston had admitted the tech.
niad and legal right of the Lords to reject a hill, but he had
not said that they were not only justified by law, but
sanctioned by policy. Lord John proceeded to explain his
own opinion of the act of the House of Lords, namely, that
it was rash and unjustifiable, and might be followed by
other similar acts, which in their consequences would work
• new form of government. The third resolution affirmed
that the house had the power to guard against an undue
exercise of power by the Lords, and he thought it would
be unwise to state in detail in what way it would be
exercised. According (continued the noble lord) to
all former practice, the whole power with regard
to finance is in the House of Commons. We
eie.aened grant that which is our own. (Hear, hear.) We
the expenditure with the revenue, and if the House
of Lords have any doubloon the subject, they ought to rely
upon the House of Commons wheu any deficiency is to be
made up. (Hear, hear.) But would it be an improvement
if the House of Lords should in future have this power
The right hon. and learned gentleman (Mr. Whiteside) has
quoted from Lord Macaulay, to show that the existence of
such • power would not create any discontent among the
people. That may be true at first, but I think such a
power could not exist for three mouths without
exciting the grfttest discontent. (Hear, hear.) I suppose
it would hardly be proposed that we should not at least
have a concurrent power, and that the sole power of taxa-
tion should be with the House of Lords. I believe, however,
that would be the better change than that the two houses
should attempt concurrently to rule the finances of the
country. (Hear, bear.) It is not only true with regard to
all past time—ever since our constitution has been a consti-
tution—that we have had the power of regulating the
finances of the country, but it is likewise true that if
we were to part with that power, and take the House of
Lords into partnership in this taxing and financial power,
the consequence must be utter confusion in our finances.
(Hear, hear.) If such • state of things existed, each house
would endeavour to take off that tax which was inset un-
popular for the moment, sad thereby get for themselves
popular credit and applause. Then comes the question as
to the danger of such • change. It is because our power
is considered to be so settled and so safe
that we have so little to fear from any
constituted body in the state. (Hear, hear.) When
there was • question of privilege with regard to the house
in the time of Charles 1., and when that sovereign came
here to ask for the five members, there came up 5,000 men
from Buckinghamshire in order to defend the right hoe.
member—(laughter)—l mean the bon. member for Bucking-
hamshire 'gains, any breach of privilege of the house in
his person. (Hear,liear.) The right honourable gentle.
man the present member for Bucks needs no such escort—
(hear, hear)--and the other members of the
house are quite as secure. The distinctinu is
this. At that time the privilege of the house was
supposed to be in danger, but at this time it is believed to
he perfectly ads. (Hear, hear.) If that is the ease we
may maintain it with, I believe, great security ; and, at all
events, it is not necessary to enter into a resolution of
defiance against the Howe of Lords. (Rear, hear.) I
believe that our privileges can be vindicated by the
means which have been pointed out, but at the same
time I think it is our business to see that
there is not achange made in the constitution in this respect.
The power exercised in America is exercised by those who
are either directly or indirectly the representatives of the
people, sod therefore have the right. The only consti.
tution in which I can find a similarity to what is now
thought of is the constitution of Russia, where the esti-
mates and expenditure are laid before the senate and
voted by them ; but of course no such constitution
could be adopted in this country. (Hear, hear.) The
right hon. gentleman in the latter part of his speech
alluded to some new plea of taxation by which landed pro-
perty especially should be made to bear a great part of the
public burden. But whatever there may be in the future—
whatever plan may be proposed, that is not the case in the
history of the present year. What we have been doing for
many years is this. We have been diminishing the taxes
upon customs and excise, and at the same time
providing means for the service of the year to allow time
for the customs and excise to move^ themselves. (Hear.)
So far from dimin4shing indirect taxation, and increasing
direct taxation, the indirect taxation of the customs and
excise some years ago was 33,000,0001., and they got
up to 44,000,0001. in the account of the presirit year.
Therefore, so far from there being a change from indirect to
direct taxation, the course pursued of late years has been
to increase indirect taxation, and this has shown the wis-
dom of the plans of finance which have now been adopted
for many years by this house. According to those plans we
have since 1815 diminished or entirely abolished the taxes
on salt, leather, candles, glass, soap, and various other
articles of general consumption, while at the same
time we have increased not only the general pro-
ductiveness of the revenue, but especially that
part of it which is derived from indirect taxation. The mea-
sure of the present year for the abolition of the paper duties
was • measure substantially in conformity with the mea-
sure to which I alluded. A measure of a similar nature for
the abolition of taxes on bricks, glass, and soap was pro-
palmed on the same ground, was adopted, I should think,
on the same authority, and was followed by the same
amount of prosperity. With what view, then, was the
bill for the abolition of the paper duties rejected by the
Howe of Lords? It cannot have been as 'totted from a
convictica ef a deficiency in the revenue, because the Lords
were not in possession of sufficient information on that sub-
ject ; but it may have been that the vote was come to
in another sense, viz., to put a stop to that wise and
healthy system of finance which we have for messy years
followed, and to declare that for the future that industry
shall not he relieved—that the great articles of consump-
tion shall continue to be taxed, and that the revenues
from landed property shall be lees heavily taxed.
If that was the intention of the Lora., it affords an
additional ground for the jealousy of this house. (Hear,
bear.) The right hon. gentleman, at the end ..f his speech,
said he should be ready to consider any plans by which the

house might for the future vindicate its powers for taxing
the people, and I have no doubt he will be ready to vindi-
cate our powers. These resolutions state moderately, but
I think firmly, what these powers are, and what we should
endeavour to maintain. The right hon. gentleman said truly
that the speech of my noble friend was in part statesmanlike
and dignified. It was in part statesmanlike and dignified,
because it met the °comicl, and went no further than the
occasion ; it wu intended to provide a remedy for what we
had suffered, and secure us against the danger of its recur-
rence, but it did not enter into any empty defiance of the
House of Lords, nor did it propose by mere resolutions to
enter into a conflict with the other branch of the legislature.
I think the House of Lords have been indis-
creet in their conduct ou this occasion, but
it will be our duty to continue in a calm
and even course. I should be very sorry if their act
should at all endanger or weaken the authority of the
House of Lords as a great branch of the national legisla-
ture. (Cheers.)
Mr. DIOBY BEYXOUR moved the adjournment of the
debate.

Mr. BRIGHT, amidst loud cries of "Order," "Co on,"
and " Divide," asked to what day it was proposed G. ad-
journ he debate!

Lord PALMERSTON said he proposed that the deist
should be adjourned until this day. (Hear, hear.)
The debate was then adjourned until this day accord-
ingly.
DOMINICA HURRICANE BILL.
This bill was read a wood time.

The Leith Harbour and Docks Bill passed through com-
mittee, after a few words against it from Mr. STEU Aar, who
said it wee continuing • profligate expenditure on a very
bad security.
The committee on the Refreshment Houses and Wine
Licenses (Ireland) Bill was postponed to this day.
REFRESHILENT. Boum AND_ WINE LICENSES

(SCOTLAND) *-

The second readiicof the wove MR was posted.
HERITABLE 8 DEITIES (SCOTLAND)pon
BILL.
This bill RS/ reed a second time.
INDEMNITY BILL.

This bill was alsosTad a seToTaTal time.
BURIAL GROUNDS (IRELAND) ACT (IEN) AMEND-
MENT BILL.

The house went into committee on this brill, and after a
short discussion,
Mr. VANCE moved that the chairman report progress.
On a division the numbers were :
Ayes
Noes
The several clauses were then agreed to, and the house
resumed.

The remaining orders were then disposed of, and the
house adjourned at a quarter put two o'clock.