The Express.
London, England, 1860-05-26 00:00:00

REPEAL OF THE PAPER DUTY RILL,

Lord PALMERSTON—I now proceed to make the motion
of which I have given notice, " for the appointment of a
select committee to search the journals of both houses of
parliament in order to ascertain and report'on the practice
of each house with regard to the several descriptions of
bills imposing or repealing taxes." I shall abstain
from going into any details at the present mo-
ment, and I trust that the house will see the ad-
vantage of not entering into a discussion of matters
upon which it is intended that the committee should fur-
nish us with information. (Hear, hear.) I apprehend it
will be better that gentlemen, whatever their opinions may
be, should defer stating them till the committee have made
their report. The step is one which I think the house
would in any view take. It certainly leaves the matter
entirely open for the future consideration of the house, with
this difference only, that it will put the house in possession
of facts with regard to which at present contradictory asser-
tions are made.

Sir J. PAKINGTON said—l have no intention, and L
am not aware that any one on this side of the house has
any intention, of offering the slightest objection to the mo-
tion of the noble lord. On the contrary, after what has
occurred I should feel sarprised if he had not taken this
course, and I concur with him in thinking that it would be
premature to enter upon • discussion of the motion under
the circumstances which have induced the noble lord
to make it. But, in assenting to the motion, it must
be understood that honourable members will not be in
the slightest degree compromised or fettered in their opinions
as to the course which her Majesty's government may think
At to take. I concur in the motion with the greater satis-
faction, as I heard from the noble lord the other night that
it was not the intention of her Majesty's government that
the motion should lead to any feeling of hostility between
the two houses of parliament.
Mr. E. JAMES was of opinion that there should be some
declaration from her Majesty's government as to the course
they intended to pursue. He waited anxiously to bear from
the so sarnment what course they meant to adopt in
consequence of the rejection of the bill for the
repeal of the paper duty and the consequences of that re-
jection—a nutter which deeply affected the dearest inter-
ests of that house. Any discussion the other evening
would have been premature ; but now that they were in
possession of what had taken place in the House of Lords,
all the precedents of that house justified them in taking
some action upon that matter. If they read aright the re-
cords of the House of Commons, that house
was in possession of abundant knowledge to guide
them in the course which they ought to adopt.
He did not wish that they should act prematurely, but on.
• subject so deeply affecting the honour and dignity of the
house and the interests of the country, her Majesty's
government ought to have made up their minds as to the
mune of action they would adopt. The precedentajuatified
him in saying that the question was ripe for some action.
The list precedent on the subject was that of 1742, when
• committee of inquiry was appointed to inquire
into the alleged corruption of Lord Orford, better known
as Sir R. Walpole. A bill was sent up from this house to
the House of Lords to indemnify the witnesses who gave
evidence en that inquiry. The House of Lords rejected the
bill on the 25th of May. A committee was then moved for
in the House of Commons like that which the noble lord
moved for, and it was ascertained that the bill was rejected
on the 26th of May. Thereupon on the following day a re-
solution was moved and carried in the House of Commons
that the refusal of the Holum of Lords to concur in tho
bill which had been sent from the House of Commons was
an obstruction of justice, and fatal to the liberties of the
nation. The house, therefore, was in possession of prece-
dents, and he could not help thinking that there was none-
cruelty whatever for moving for • committee to search for
precedents which, without imputing any motives to the
=ment, ovoid only lead to ternporiaing and delay. The
ot Commons, therefore, and the country expected
that the noble lord, as the head of the government, would
susses what course the government intended to pursue
in esenagnente of the rejection of a bill which embarrassed
the ineaseisl measures of the session—(laughter)—anil
deeply affected the privileges, the dignity, and the honour
Cl that bowie. (Hear. )
Mr. DIGBY SEYMOUR said that he objected to Mu
nudist upon two grenade rind, be objected to the terms
se the "Lotion, which ruts thus—" To ascertain and report
en
the practice of each house with regard to the several
of bills imposing or repealing taxes." Be
=rthat this was fo.give to the committee something
like the ehareeew of a roving commission. With regard to
practice of the two houses of parliament,
it was to be found in Hsteell's Book of Precedent' and Mr.