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

'tie erPrrlci.

TO 011111LINTOTTV1171.
011,61M111*,, Wend", fur is. Klemm " leaden Itywatis
fed be el the, Ace. 10, Doeverloelnel, h Ts*
;Wit ea tae der el publladlos.

MATIMERT.
TWWOgiz TVS FAMILY Mallet Werra W. rims.
Illeimiess. Mks Am, Andorkk. Wis
371ia—IITXU11111 or VIM/MYTHIC HALL Wr.
Illedialre —And TID DUAltbi NO Iti:HUOL —Cayenne .$ 7.

Tin Err, OTIIRLLA Ikons, nobs aad Ryder ;
NW& mad Nis Aorta —w 1111.16 E YALU ED. Moira
lbws. Graides. amd J. 0. flise • . C. Ledessi—Car
somast 211.

The Maim SACS IWKI ON =A& : cr. Th. NM he Os
11 IL CY*. —Am aolis-ardlain wisp al I= LADY OP
LYON& Sum & Mama mad C Rim ; & Us" Slim I.
Jessla-11111CILUDION 0/ INGLAND.—Aad 7O QUO=

WON WATIS AT ILINZION 111IDOIL
Twee DAT —Marsha 111 h. Afterenno, et. 311.
IL.-tiosAuw—Manias. 7k. tn.

LONDON, ELI TURDAT. MAY 26.

Tee short debate in the House of Commons
last night on Lord Pakumurroe's motion for a
Comieittee to inquire into precedents as to the con-
trol of Money Bills will tend to reassure those who
had begun to fear that both the House and the
Government were disposed to treat a great con-
stitutional question in a .careless and per.
functory manner. That this feeling existed
and wee daily becoming more deep and general, is
unquestionable. The petitions Mr. Ballow pre-
sented last !Light from several places in Lancashire
illustrate the rising wave of popular dismatiafao-
tion and alarm at the apparent apathy of the
Commons. The prayer of these petitions is, "that
" the House will preserve its privilege and prero-
" satire of determining the taxation of the
" country." No such petitions as these have
been presented to Parliament in our time, or in
that of our forefathers for many generations.
Indeed there has rarely been any necessity to
quickea the zeal of the House on such a point.
It has usually shown itself keenly alive to its
privileges, and prompt and energetic in defending
them. Any appearance of lukewarrmiess, there-
fore, on such a vital question of privilege as the
right of taxation would naturally tend to
rouse the watchful jealousy of the country.
There is no doubt that this feeling
would have been spread far more generally
bad not the two questions raised by the vote of the
Lords on Monday night, been especially at first
very much mixed up and confounded in the public
mind. The mere financial question involved in
that vote is of comparatively email importance.
Whether the paper duty shall he repealed this
year or next is a question not of principle but of
exped►ency. AU are agreed that it is a bad tax
which ought to be abolished at the earliest moment ;
but many differ as to whether that moment
is now or twelve months hence. This question is
of limited and temporary interest, and how-
ever ardently we may desire to have the duty
removed at once, it would be quite impossible to
raise the country, or create any great excitement
on the point. The case is very different, however,
with regard to the constitutional question raised
by the vote of Monday night. That is of the
very utniost gravity and importance. The
right of the representatives of the pee.
phi to determine absolutely the taxation
of the country is the very bulwark of our national
freedom. Any attempted invasion of this sacred
right is not a question of limited or temporary
moment. It touches the essence of the con-
stitution, and may affect not only the present
generation but the whole future fortunes of
England. As soon as this is clearly seen,
as soon as the constitutional question is dis-
entangled from the financial one, the gravity
of the proceedings in the House of Lords
on Monday evening becomes at once apparent.
At first, as we have said, there was some slight
confusion, but the country is already awake to the
true bearings of the case, and as these are more
clearly perceived, the popular voice will be raised
in unano--- of

Protest against the establishnu
any dangerous or unconstitutional precedent.

The House of Commons, too, last night showed
itself fully alive to the gravity of the con-
stitutional question at aurae. At the beginning
of the debate, indeed, some younger opposition
members seemed disposed to treat the subject in •
light and trivial spirit, attempting to laugh at Mr.
Dusi-iiuse, and "Oh, oh" Mr. Below?. But
these unbecoming symptoms soon disappeared, and
both sides of the Moues displayed a gravity and
earnestness befitting the occasion. The tone taken,
ton, was the right one. Almost every
speaker agreed in throwing out of account
the mere financial question of the paper duty,
and in concentrating the attentieu of the House on
the far more important point of parliamentary
privilege and constitntional right. Mr. Amour
kit the tense of the House, and put the matter in
its trims light :—" In 6/considering this question I
" bare not at heart the &lightent regard to the
" particular tax which it was proposed to repeal.
" If it bad been a proposal to levy an additional
" tax of the excise duty on paper, and it had gone
" up to the Home of Loots with the assent of
" this House, and it had been rejected se this
" Bill has been, I believe I should have been one
" of those who would have insisted with all those
" with whom I sit in this House to protest against
" the interference of the other House of Parlia-
" went ; and though I confess I have for many
" years felt a warm and growing interest in the
" abolition of the paper duty, since that division
" has taken place that particular question has
" (Wien into insignificance in my sight compared
" with the far greater question which the House
"of Lords has opened to the consideration of
" Parliament and the country." Lord Jaw