The Sun.
London, England, 1860-06-26 00:00:00

THE COMMITTEE ON PRECEDENTS.

We believe we may announce that the collision
between the Lords and the Commons which was
to be, and which was to lead to the extermination
or subjection of the former anomalous body, has
been averted. The very numerous committee of
two-and-twenty, we are told, succeeded:in resolving
itself into two parties, under two chiefs, who both
prepared i eports. Mr. Walpole prepared one,
giving a quiet history of the precedents, and say-
ing very much what has been said before. Bound
to truth, he was unable to import much variety
into a theme which was simply a question as to
matters of fact. A counter report was prepared.
by Mr. Bright, with the assistance, it is said, of a
constitutional adviser of great celebrity in small
circles. This went into the very depths and
heights of the question, and, of course, concluded
that the House of Lords had done what it had no
right to do, and that the House of Commons should.
set the decision of the Lords at nought. This
might be very excellent advice if the object were
to bring things to the speediest possible issue, at
whatever cost; and we can easily imagine gentle-
men very happy to ride the storm that might be
got up on such an occasion: These two reports
were laid before the committee, which had thus to
choose between history and science, between dry
matter of fact and ardent opinion. Some members
of the committee could not agree with Mr Bright's
report, yet stood so much in awe of its explosive
tendency that they proposed a compromise—
a third report, which should amalgamate the
two gauges. Eventually, however, the two rival
reports were put to the vote, when Mr. Bright
succeeded in obtaining, in addition to his own vote,
for his report, those of Mr. Gladstone and Lord
John Russell, The former of these gentlemen was
concerned in the subject-matter of the difference—
the repeal of the Paper Duty—and the latter was
tolerably safe to take the widest interpretation
of popular right and the narrowest of constitutional
Privilege. The whole trio, therefore, were too
deeply pledged for their agreement to form any
novelty or have any weight. The remainder of the
committee agreed to Mr. Walpole's report. There
can be little doubt as to the course to be taken by
the house. The three dissentients will have a
hearing, and will recommend and deliver their own
will report,be wellamplified
supported, into
and
the constitutional good speeches. They
ques-
tion will be largely illustrated and embellished.
The house, however, will be content with letting
the minority have their say out. It will adopt
Mr. Walpolu's report, with,
possibly against the late decisionosfsibthlye,
La
oqrudise tb
epirnog-
construed into a new
arc for the future precedent. The effect of this
will be that the Hon
be •
lemoNt
iCtomexmpoosnesswitisllelpfrotboatbhlye
chance of being
snubbed% by the Lords. On the
recent occasion it certainly did something to pro-
voke its own fate. The next time it sends up to
the Lords a bill for the repeal of a productive tax
it Will take care that the passing of the measure
shall not be equivalent to the infliction of a serious
deficiency.— 2 i,nes.

Ma. GRIM STONE, High-street, Bloomsbury.—
Ophthalmic Hospital, Charing-cross. Sir, Perceiving
that on one of your bills my name is mentioned in union
with that of my late patient, Mr. Lachfield, I Leg to confirm
his testimony, and state the great benefit derived by the
use of your excellent Herbaceous Eye Snuff in his case,
which was one of obstinate chronic ophthalmia, aceoraPa-
pied by opacity of the cornea, and a varicorsestateof the con-
junctional vessels. His case was the first under my notice
in which the preparation was used ; butbping struck by its
advantageous results, 1 resolved to leuj
.ctospital.
ande prvutee, and
advise its use in some cases in my Practi!e at this
The benefit was great, and has led me still further to recom-
mend it,—l am your obedient servant, J. G. GUTHRIE,