The Express.
London, England, 1861-05-14 00:00:00

Idea W4llll AT 101/21111 w

--- ---- --
IMO DM --IMF ib. 111ia.... Ileminii, IL as.
firamerw—aleambs. IL Oft.. - illmosil; a. UM

LONDON, TUNIIDAY, MAY 14.

THE Opposition seem to have resolved to con-
tribute their uttermost to the CHANCILLOH of the
IfLICHIQUEIC4 success by securing a decisive par-
liamentary- triumph for the form as well as fee the
matter of the Budget. At all events, it is quite
certain that the kind of resistance offered last
night to the second reading of the Bill embodying
the financial resolutions already passed by the
House can accomplish no other purpose. And it
is difficult to imagine what other object even the
moat sanguine opponents' of the Government can
hope to gain by this attack on the form of the
Budget. That it should succeed is out of the
question-11.i completely so, that we venture to
nay not a single nwniher of the party ventures
even to dream of victory. Having already failed
in • combined attack on the financial
scheme of the Government at its weakest
point, it would be mere folly to think
of successfully assaulting its strongest outworks.
Thu apposition has already exhausted the popular
objections to the Budget, in urging the claims of
tea against paper. That effort which enlisted
considerable sympathy out of doors having failed,
they have rushed to the opposite extreme. Hay-
ing opposed the Budget in the interest of the
people, they now oppose it in the interest of the
peers. Theory of the poor man's comforts has
given place to the cry of the rich man's privi-
leges. Instead of remaining faithful to their trust,
and jealously watching over the national expen-
diture, the Opposition now vindicate the
usurped right of the Upper Howie to control the
finances of the country. A more unpopular or
unpatriotic ground of opposition could not pos-
sibly have been selected. Such an attack courts
defeat. It cannot succeed in the House; and
if it could, it would be indignantly
repudiated out of doors. We venture to say
that the form of the Budget is one of its special
excellencies and chief recommendations in the
eyes of the nation at large. The taxpayers of this
country do not relish the notion of having the
burdens they are to bear fixed by an irresponsible
and hereditary chamber, and will heartily support
their representatives, the Commons of England, in
resign* by all legitimate means any attempt that
may be made in this direction. And even had no
precedent existed for the course the Government
have adopted, it is one so completely in keeping
with the fundamental rights of the Lower House,
and is recommended by so many considerations
not only of abstract justice, but of policy and
public convenience, that we believe Parliament
would not have hesitated to adopt it. But
if the speeches of last night at all fairly
represent the case of the Opposition against
the form of the Budget, their resistance to
the Bill is certainly as weak and groundless as
it is unpopular. So far not a single precedent,
not even a plausible objection, has been urged
against the plan of the Government. Mr. MAC-
DONOGH, who opened the debate, touched histori-
cally on almost every question connected with
financial legislation except the one before the
House. The extreme care with which be avoided
the only point before the House contrasted
oddly enough with the lavish research, the volu-
minous quotations, and the sonorous emphasis
brought to bear on irrelevant questions. The hon.
member is comparatively new to the House, or he
would perhaps scarcely have indulged in such
copious references to Buousrr, PINNOCK, and the
historic page generally, in •uppoit of positions
which the House was not called to diaries, and
which nobody disputes. He gave along and learned
account, for example, of what is known as
" tacking," or annexing other bills to Bills of
Supply. But all this was labour and time abeo-
lutely thrown away. It had nothing to do with
the matter before the House. The House, no
doubt, possesses the abstract right of "tacking,"'
but it is one which has properly enough fallen into
disuse. But whether the House has this right or not
is beside the question. The plan of including the
financial measures for the year, or the greater pert
of them, in • single bill has nothing to do wit%
" tacking." And this plan is justified by as long
and decisive a aeries of precedents as almost any'
point of parliamentary procedure. Then, again,
Mr. Msi-uoiroon ostentatiously challenged the
production of any authority for the sending up
again, as part of another bill, a financial measure
already rejected by the House of Lords. This was, in
fact, one of the chief points, if not the chief point,
of his speech. But really this kind of objection
is almost too puerile for serious reply. Of course
there is no exact precedent for the relative posi.
tion of the two houses this year, for the very
reason that the course adopted by the Upper
House last year was an absolute novelty in our
constitutional history. Lord Joan MANNIZE only
repudiated in a rather lighter form the misplaced
erudition and irrelevant platitudes of the hon.
Member for Sligo. So far we are at aloes to
understand on what grounds, either of precedent
or policy, the plan adopted by the Government of
including the chief financial measures for the year
in • single Bill is opposed.
Still we confess we are by no means sorry that
the attention of Parliament and the public should
be specially called to the form of the Budget.
After what happened last year it is important that
the sole right of the Comeion• over taxation and
supply ghoul.' he vindicated in the most practical
and effective manner which the forms and usages