The Express.
London, England, 1861-05-17 00:00:00

lIIUTAWNIA.

Tim tsar.,. -ME (371-effilibilial. Mrs I. Yarnnld
ny Martinson and Mr. C. Momlmam
Yr. %I Ylogr.Lll33 lo3r(311KIL Mrs IL Amin rad Ike Little
•• owlet. —And I Lt4El IC ill &

NIG II W trElt AT LONDON BUDGE.
Tn DAT —‘l.nolmg, 1.1 44.• . Alloramm. 711. I?rn
T.>41011110.-11.ramit. 7k. ... Aftwomem. Mk. 17m.

LONDON, FRIDAY, MAY 17.

Tn► longer the Budget debate lasts the
stronger does the position of the Government
become the more clearly and triumphantly
is the form of the measure vindicated on
both sides of the House. Indeed, the only
objection that can be fairly urged against
the discussion is that it is too completely one-
sided. All the arguments and all the authorities
go one way. The Opposition really have no case
at all. Not a single member who ham the slightest
weight with the House on constitutional questions
has ventured to say a word against the proposal
of the Government. There is nothing to contest.
This of course makes the debate leas interesting
and lively than it might otherwise be. But the
constitutional question nominally at issue will of
course be all the more completely established
from the concurrent arguments and unanimous

support of the ablest constitutional authorities
on both sides of the House. In this respect the
debate last night is of signal value and import-
ance. The case for the Government had indeed
been established on Monday evening by the un-
answerable speeches of Sir .1 AIM GaAnAn and
Lord &nix licsseLL. No subsequent speaker on
the Opposition benches has attempted to deal with
the conclusive arguments adduced by these distin-
guished constitutional authorities. Vague charges
of a covert attack on the Upper House, and still
vaguer threats of possible resistance, have indeed
bee., thrown out in the course of the debate, but
no Opposition speaker has ventured directly to assail
the strong parliamentary position taken up by the
Government. if any further vindication of that
position were needed it is amply supplied in the
two striking speeches delivered by the members
for the University of Oxford last night. Contrary
to hie usual custom Sir WiLuam Humans ap-
peared as the champion of his colleague the
CM•MIMILIAI of the EIi:IMAM; so far as the form
of the Budget is concerned ; and his testimony on
this point is entitled to the greater weight as he en-
tertains strong objections to some of its contents.
The hon. baronet is indeed, as all the world knows,
not only an influential but a very decided member
of his party ; having strong Conservative convic-
tions, and uniformly acting on them on questions
of general policy. He justly, however, stated
last night that the question raised with
regard to the relative position and rights of
the two Holmes must be regarded as a judicial
rather than a political one, and looking upon it in
that light Sir WILLIAM I:IIIATMLNYTE expressed his
strong conviction that the course taken by the
Government was thoroughly sound and constitu-
tional. In a short but weighty speech the hon.
baronet defended the plan of the Government on
the various grounds of precedent, principle, and
policy. He showed that the plan of including the
financial proposals of the year in a single Bill was
supported by a bug and decisive series of
dent& And he at once destroyed the spurious
precedents adduced on his own aide by the
pointed remark that the mere fact of division
—the dividing the Budget for the year
into several Bills—really proved nothing
at all. It touches no point of privilege,
and does not bear at all on the question at issue.
The Lower House divided the bills merely for its
own convenience, without any reference to the
Upper House at all ; and the only period, there-
fore, from which pertinent precedents can be drawn
is the period when it was usual to send up all the
financial propositions for the year in • single bill.
This course was at one time the common one, and
it was never objected to by the Lords. This was
in itself sufficiently decisive; but the bon. baronet
added to the weight of his testimony by the im-
portant statement that be spoke nut only on his
own behalf, but on behalf of the right hon. gentle-
man the Member for the University of Cambridge,
who was Chairman of the Committee of Prece-
dents last year. Mr. WALrois being prevented
by indisposition from attending the House, autho-
rised Sir W. }turmoil-re to state on his behalf that
be entirely supported the course adopted by the
Government. After this decisive testimony from
the Conservative Members of both Universities,
whose authority on constitutional questions is cer-
tainly se high as that of any member on their side
of the House, Mr. GLAnnose might well say that
nothing was wanting to the argument. If any-
thing had been wanting it was effectually supplied
by the right hon. gentleman in his admirable state-
ment to the House of the real points at issue in
the debate. As usual, the CM•MCSLLOIL of the
Exensecza proved that both in learning and
logic be is more than • match for his
opponents. Mr. GLADSTONE showed himself
far more learned than his critics in the mere lore
of precedents. But he did not rest the justifica-
tion of the course the Government had pursued
on parliamentary precedence alone. He vindi-
cated it on AA own merits, as supported by con-
siderations of principle, of expediency, and of
public convenience.

A feature of the debate which ought not to be
omitted wee the speech of the Member for Stroud.
The right hon. gentleman favoured the House
with one of hie laboured efforts in the grand ar
grandiloquent style that he affects. It was
in his happiest manner—a favourable speci-
men of that monocrats mock-heroic style of
eloquence which is happily well nigh obsolete.
The speech abounded in the sounding platitudes,
paradoxes, and prophecies in which the speaker