The Sun.
London, England, 1860-05-22 00:00:00

THE SUN, LONDON, TUESDAY EVENING, MAY 22, 186 g.
4 • -

were to grant, for the sake of argument, that the noble lard
is not only technically and legally right, but that in propos-
ing such an unusual course to your lordships he is within
the pale of the constitution, I ask, is the course he proposes
a just one? Is it just to the people of the country when a
remission of burdens affecting trade and industry is pro-
posed by the Government and assented to by the House of
Commons—is it just to the people after the remission and
imposition ( f taxation have been balanced, to saddle them
with additional taxation ? I had a letter from a very intel•
ligcnt tradesman from the town of Carmarthen, who stated
that the tax on the paper he consumed would more than
enable him to pay his income-tax. He was well satisfied
with the budget, and hoped by his savings to be able to
drink a little cheap French wine, but he was now to be ex-
posed to a double tax. Twill tell you another set of indivi-
duals to whom the conduct recommended by the =Me earl is
unjust—l mean the Board of Inland Revenue. Is it fair to
gentlemen on whom you impose the financial-administration
of affairs, on whom the whole coos of the collection of taxes
depends, is it fair to impose on them the administration of a
law which they cannot thoroughly recommend, and which if
carried out must be unjust and unequal to a large portion of
the taxpayers ? 1 say it is not just. Then, is it wise in your
lordships, of all branches of the Legislature—admitting the
constitutional right, is it wise to take the people by surprise
as much as you hive taken them ? You have taken them
by surprise, but—perhaps that comes more under the head
of justice than of wisdom—is it fair to persons in every
branch of the paper and publishing trade, who in the usual
course of proceeding have embarked in contracts on the
faith of this measure having passed the House of Cozn-
mous, and who will lose not hundreds but thousands
by the purchase of s eam engines and land on which to ex-
tend their factories, as well as in numerous contracts both
at home and abroad ? My, lords, I think the injustice to
these men will be great indeed. It almost appears a case in
which, from changes in our revenue system, compensation
should ensue. Then, with respect to any real public objects
proposed by the noble lord, in the consolidation of the
finances for the present or the future, is this'a wise proceed-
ing ? The principle hasalways been to limit to the smallest
possib'e space the inconvenience arising from any change
in our system of taxation affecting the whole commercial
and industrial world. As soon as the House of Commons
declared their opinion in favour of the remission of any cus•
toms duty it ceased ; and these papermakers and publishers
having proceeded on the faith of the House of Commons,
y our lordships in agreeing with the noble lord will now be
disturbing all confidence in the decisions of the House of
Commons, and it will be impossible for the Government to '
propose the most beneficent improvements in taxation, with-
out our whole merchants, manufacturers, and tradesmen
being kept in a state of anxiety and suspense two or three
months longer than they might otherwise have been. With
regard to revenue, is it perfectly wise to put yourself in op-
position to the House of Commons? I sincerely hope the
House el Commons will show the utmost moderation and
temper with regard to the interests of everybody in view of
any decision to which your lordships may come to-night ;
but is it wise to take an unusual and exceptional course
and to trust entirely to the moderation and temper of the
Commons that no evil results shall arise ? The House of
Commons will be placed in great difficulty, and to this I
would call the special attention of the noble earl opposite.
You by this act to-night certainly take an unusual course;
and if there was anything wanted to make this more unpa •
latable to the House of Commons, I think you have it in the
speech of the noble earl to the deputation upon this subject.
The noble earl talks of permanent taxation, and he says :
" When you state that refusing the repeal of a duty is
equivalent to the imposition of a new tax, and when,
further, I think I caught the expression in the address of a
loose practice having prevailed of gassing duties for a term
of years, definite and indefinite, I must protest, in the first
place, against that being termed a loose practice which has
been brought in, because it is a practice which, if it were
disregarded, would destroy the very essence of our consti-
tution."

Hear, hear.) That the noble earl should cheer that ob-
servation I can understand, but that the house should cheer
it utterly takes me by surprise. (Hear, and a laugh.) This
is no laughing matter. The noble earl goes on to state :
" There are certain great departments to be maintained,
certain great services to be performed, which it is absolutely
essential should not depend upon the annual vote of Parlia •
m nt, and which the Lords and Commons, feeling together
that they ought not so to depend, have placed out of their
own power and have passed permanent acts for supplying
the means of defraying the expenses of those departments,
and have also provided that the appropr:ation to these de-
partments shall not be interfered with by annual vote."
What does that mean ? It means that you are to take away
the right of the Commons to stop the supplies. I hope the
noble earl will take the opportunity in his speech to-night
of explaining this part of his address. There is, my lords.
another view of our position which may very properly be
taken in dealing with this great question—l allude to the
internal state of the country. That is, lam happy to say,
a topic which we can dwell upon with satisfaction, for never
did greater order—never did greater tranquillity prevail
throughout the land than at the present moment. (Hear.)
At no period, I may add, did a greater degree of soundness
manifest itself in her trade, hoe agriculture, and her manu-
factures, while she is as I speak rich with the glorious pro-
mise of future production. The employment of the poorer
classes, too, is in a state the most satisfactory, causing the
diminution of poverty and crime. What ground for finan-
cial alarm is there, I should like to know, to be found in
such a position of affairs ? None; and I shall not mince the
matter, but shall take it for granted that many among your
lordships look with some anxiety to foreign countries, and
see certain signs in Europe which you think may possibly
lead to war, and to complications which may result in drag-
ging England into the contest. You take this view, and you
seek to make due provision against tho contingency which
you apprehend. Heaven forbid, ray lords, that I should give
expression to a syllable which would tend to encourage
such an apprehension in the slightest degree, but if, unhap-
pily, such a consummation as that to which I allude should
arrive, what, let me ask, would be the best position in which
we could stand to meet its approach ? Which would be
more desirable, that its advent should find the two HouSts
of Parliament acting with cordiality together, without a
particle of jealous feeling towards one another, under their
beloved Sovereign, directing in unison the energies of the
wealthiest and the most public-spirited nation on earth, or
that it should come upon us at a momet t when a series of
recriminations between the two branches of the Legislature
had sprung up—and nobody can tell how soon they might
under a certain state of things break out—affording a scan-
dalous spectacle to the other nations of Europe ? (Hear.)
Do you suppose, my lords, that you would in the latter case
find yourselves in a better position either to carry on diplo-
macy or to prost cute war than you would in the former,
even though you had to aid you s me few hundred thou-
sand pounds extracted from a tax which no one among us
defires to see permanent, and which is now seriously dam-
aged as a source of revenue. (Hear, hear.) There is one
other consideration which I would suggest to your lord-
ships' notice before I sit down. Is it wise for yourselves
or for the interests of this house—which I believe stands as
high now in popular favour and esteem as it did at any pe-
riod of -its existence—to take the course which the noble
earl opposite asks you to pursue ? One great proof my lords,
that I am right in saying you hold such a position in public
opinion is to be found in the fact that no writing, speech, or
declaration hostile in spirit to this house can be made that
the attack does not immediately full flat to the ground, being
devoid of any substantial foundation. (Hear.) Is it prudent,
then, for your own sakes to afford what in accordance with
my view might be construed into a reasonabje ground of
complaint against you, and to do that which in accordance
with the view of almost every one among us must appear
to be calculated to furnish food for declamation to those
who may seek to injure this branch of this Legislature as
one of the institutions of the realm ? It was, I think, Mr.
Burke, who said that one of the most critical and invidious
functions which the House of Commons had to discharge
was to originate the whole weight of taxation, inasmuch
as its hand was felt and seen in every burden that pressed
upon the people. This system has, however, hitherto
worked well, connecting as it does taxation with represen-
tation. Would it be wise for your lordships to introduce
a now system, and to have your hand, instead of that of
the House of Commons, felt in every burden which presses
upon the people? (Hear.) My lords, I have done. It re-
mains for me simply to thank you for your unexampled
kindness and indulgence, and to ass ire you that the obser-
vations which I have just offered to you have been made
with feelings as earnest and sincere as by which I have at
any period of my life been animated, and with a strong
hope that your lordships may see the expediency, indepen
dent of all party considerations, of avoiding, by your deci
sion to-niolt the occurrence of a state of things the direc

or indirect consequences of which it is impossible for any
one among us to predict. (Loud cheers.)

Lord LYNDHURST—The noble lord who has just
spoken, my lords, has done me the honour to refer to what
fell from me on a former occasion, but T trust that I shall
before I sit down be able to satisfy your lordships that the
remarks to which he alludes have no bearing upon the pre-
sent case. I hope, therefore, I may be allowed, even at this
early stage of the argument—not proposing to myself to
enter into the whole question under discussion, confining
myself to the preliminary and most important question of
the privileges of this as contrasted with the other House of
Parliament—to trespass for a short time on that indulgence
which you usually exhibit to those who address you on sub-
jects of this nature. (Hear.) There can, my lords, be no
party question—no possible party question—involved in the
consideration of the privileges of your lordships' house. All
we have to do in dealing with the subject is to ascertain
what those privileges are, and then to act in accordance
with the conclusion on the point at which we may arrive.
The noble earl opposite alluded in the course of his speech
to some meeting which took place lately, and which was
presided over by a great number of the members of the other
House of Parliament. (Earl Granvillo said he had not

spoken of the meeting to which the noble lord referred.)
My noble friend has not alluded to the meeting, but he has
alluded to its results. (Hear, hear.) That meeting was, I
repeat, presided over by several members of the House of
Commons, and what, let me ask, were the doctrines which
were there laid down ? The doctrine, my lords, that for
this house to reject a money bill -vas an invasion of the
_ _

privileges of the other branch of the Legislature, and an in-
fraction of the rights of the people. Not satisfied with that
statement, those who addressed the meeting declared such a
proceeding to be an insult to the monarchy. I believe also
that at that meeting., or at some other of a similar character,

a member of the House of Commons who has great influence
with certain classes of the people of this country told his
audience that the amendment of which my noble friend op-
posite (Lord Monte-T.le) has given notice is an insult to the
other House of Parliament. Under these circumstances, my
lards, I have felt it to be my duty—l hope not with impro-
priety, having on more than one occasion presided over your
lordships' deliberations, in which position it fell within my
province to examine into and to make myself as far as pos-
sible master of the question of the privileges of this house—
to lay before you the conclusions on the subject at which I
have arrived. (Hear.) You must not, however, for one
moment suppose that I assume to myself any authority in
dealing with this important question. I have no intention
or desire to dogmatise with respect to it. I shall simply do
that which 1 have done on a former occasion—lay before
you as plainly as I can the facts, the principles, the autho-
rities, and the precedents with which, in connexion with
this point, I am acquainted, leaving your lordships—with-
out any doubt as to the conclusion to which you will come
—to form your own opinion upon the matter. Now, it is
in the first place, most desirable in such a discussion to get
rid of all those points in regard to which no doubt exists.
I do not dispute—nor can it be for a moment disputed--
that we have no right whatsoever to amend what is called a
money bill. We have, moreover, no right whatsoever to
originate a bill of that nature. Formerly, indeed, and for
many years, a very sharp controversy took place between
the two Houses of Parliament as to the existence of the
right to which I refer. From the time of the Restoration
to a considerable period after the Revolution there were
cases in which this house exercised the right of amending
money bills b ought up from the other House of Parliament
with little or no dispute on the point. Controversies, in-
deed, sometimes took place which were carried on with no
small degree of acrimony. All the cases on the subject are
to be found collected in the third volume of Mr. Hatsell,
who I may fairly represent as being the advocate of the
privileges of the House of Commons. I may observe that
the result was that this house abandoned the
claim. Why ? Because they had no power to en-
force it. If we amended a bill which was sent up from the
other House of Parliament, the House of Commons had the
power of rejecting that amendment. With them the bill
originated, and it was idle for us, therefore, to insist on the
right to amend it. But that priiciple does not apply to the
rejection of Money Bills. (Hear, hear.) There is not an in-
stance to be found in which the House of Commons has
controverted our right to reject Money Bills. Over and
over again, I repeat it, nothing can be found in the Parlia-
mentary journals or in any history of Parliamentary pro-
ceeding to show that our right to reject Money Bills has
been denied. (Hear, hear.) There is a curious anecdote
to be found in Roger North's "Examen," which bears upon
the point. A Money Bill came up from the other house,
in which there was supposed to be something or other in-
formal or improper. There was a payment to be made of
sonic money on account of the past year, and great diffi-
culty existed as to what course should be taken. Roger
North, who knew well the privileges of both houses, states
that it put the House of Lords in a dilemma. He says we
could not mend the least punctilio in a Money Bill, but he
admits distinctly in terms that we had a clear right to throw
it out altogether, although we did net like to exercise that
right, because we were afraid that a similar bill would not
come up, and we were anxious to pass the bill. They got
out of the dilemma in rather a eurious 'way. After two
days' discussion, some noble lord, a little behind the seenes
apparently, asked to see the bill, to have it laid on the table,
and when it was produced it was found perfectly correct,
and the house passed it at once. Still I don't mean to rely
on the authority of Roger North, well acquainted though
he was with the privileges of both houses ; but before going
to the authorities which established those privileges, I will
consider the arguments and authorities of those persons
who oppose our privileges. I find there is a resolution
quoted of the House of Commons in 1671, which I will read
to yonr lordships. On a bill for an imposition on foreign
commodities the Commons resolved,--
"That in all aids given to the King by the Commons
the rate or tax ought not to be altered."
Your lordships don't dispute it. (Hear, hear.) That is an
authority on which our adversaries rely. (Hear, hear.)
Another authority on which they rely is a resolution of the
Commons in 1678, which I will also read to your lordships.
On the 3d of July in that year they resolved :--
"That all aids and supplies and aids to His Majesty in
Parliament are the sole gift of the Commons, and all Bills
for the :granting :of any such aids and supplies ought to
begin with the Commons, and that it is the undoubted and
sole right of the Commons to direct, limit, and appoint in
such Bills the ends, purposes, considerations, conditions,
limitations, and qualifications of such grants, which ought
not to be changed or altered by the House of Lords."
These are the two authorities which are relied upon by the
adversaries of our privileges, and they deduce from them
that the Lords have no power to reject Money Bills. These
authorities say that we have no right to amend a Money
Bill, and that we have no right to originate a Money Bill,
and, by a curious kind of logic,"they conclude that we have,
therefore, no right to reject a bill of that kind. That is a
logic peculiar to themselves, which certainlywould not meet
with the approbation of the great Stagyrite. (Hear, hear.)
But what.l complain of is this,—l complain of the want of
fairness, the want of candour,—l won't say of honesty, be-
cause that is too strong a word (a laugh), displayed in
quoting these passages, and omitting to quote others which
are to be found in the self-same book, and which lead, as
far as inference can lead, to directly the opposite conclu-
sion. (Hear, hear.) Is this fair ? Is this candid ? Can
you place any reliance upon persons who adopt this style
of argument ? (Cheers.) In fact, it is destructive to the
case which they endeavour to set up. (Hear, hear.) In
the very book whence the quotations I have read are drawn
you will find what lam now about to read. In 1689, one
of the best periods in our history, the Lords amended a
Money
,Bill—a Poll Bill, I believe. The Commons disa-
greed, and desired a conference, giving their reasons for
that conference. In their reasons, which are stated with
the utmost elaboration, with the utmost minuteness, and
with a kind of superabundance of words which seems to
show that they meant to sweep everything into their net,
they admit in the :most unqualified manner, not only the
power but the right, the constitutional right, a right equal
to that of the 'House of .Commons, to reject Money Bills
when they think proper, and when they think the interests
of the country require it. (Hear, hear.) I defy any person
at all acquainted with the law and constitution of this
country to entertain a different opinion after having sifted
and examined the subject even in a superficial manner.
(Hear.) I have some scruple in reading the reasons stated
by the House of Commons, on account of the superabun-
dance of words, but still they will show how earnest the
Commons were cs the subject, how eager they were to
state their own privileges, and then you will see the value
of the admission they make as to the authority of this house.
On the 9th of May, 1689, they sent up their reasons for de-
sing a conference on the amendment of the Poll Bill by the
Lords. Among them are the followings—and this extract,
I beg your lordships to observe, is taken from the same
book as those I read before, which are relied on by our ad-
versaries :
"All money aids and taxes to be raised or charged u;son
the subjects in Parliament are the gift and grant of she
Commons in Parliament, and are and always have been,
and ought to be, by the constitution and ancient course and
laws of Parliament, and by the ancient and undoubted
rights of the Commons of England, the sole and entire gift
grant, ani present of the Commons in Parliament, and to
be laid, rated, raised and paid, levied and returned for the
public service and use of the Government, as the Commons
shall direct, limit, and appoint, and modify the same. And
the Lords are not to alter such gift, grant, limitation, ap-
pointment, or modification of thq.Commons in any part or,
circumstance."
Nothing can be more full, nothing more precise, than this
phraseology; nothing can show greater anxiety to state
what their rights are. (Hear.) So far they are not dis-
puted by your lordships; and then the extract goes on
Or otherwise to interpose in such bil s, than to pass or
reject the same for the whole, without any alteration or
amendment, though in ease of the subjects."
(Cheers.) Nothing can be more distinct than this admis-
sion, they state their own rights forcibly, and they state the
exception in favour of the Lords with equal force and pre -
cision, but not with equal abundance of words. (A laugh.)
But they don't stop there. They go on, and use a kind of
simile :

"As the Kings and Queens, by the laws and constitu-
tions of Parliament, are to take all, or to leave all, in such
gifts, grants, and presents from the Commons, and cannot
cake part, and leave part, so are the Lords to pass all or
reject all, without diminution or alteration."
This is not an admission of power, but of a right—(cheers)—
an admission by the Commons of a constitutional right of
this house. And it is to be lamented that those gentlemen
who contend against the privileges of this house, and who
have quoted certain passages from this very work, had not
the fairness to cite the one I have now read, which is to be
found in the very next page to that from which their ex-

tracts were taken. (Cheers) I have another of a some-
what earlier date,—the year 1671. And it is remarkable
that the very document which I have just read should have
been founded on the proceedings to which I ain now about
to call your lordships' attention; so that in reading the case
which they have quoted they must have had this very docu-
ment before them. (Hear.) A bill for an inquisition en
foreign commodities came up from the House of Commons,
was amended by the Lords, and the Commons rejected the
amendments, A conference was demanded, and the pro-
ceeding were continued for several successive days. Now,
mark what took place, Your lordships maintained it to be
for the happiness of the constitution that the two houses
should mutually be checks on each other. What was the

answer of the Commons ? "So they are still," they said, "for
your lordships have a negative to the whole." (Hear, hear.)
There is a marked admission on the part of the other house.
Another part of the argument was, " If the Lords may
deny the whole, why not a part ? Else the Commons may
at last pretend to bar a negative voice." The reply of the
Commons bears on the present question :—"The King must
dens the whole of every bill or pass it ; yet this does not
take away his negative voice—why should it take away
yours ?" (Loud cheers.) My noble friend on Saturday re-
ceived a deputati n, which at great length and with marvel-
cus audacity endeavoured to dissuade him from opposing '
this bill. But they took nothing by their motion. (Laughter
and cheers.) And when, as they were about to retire, one
more pugnacious than the rest took a long and lingering look
behind, and endeavoured to draw my noble friend into a con-
flict, the noble wisely and prudently refused to be en-
trapped into any admission. My noble friend put the ques-
tion very clearly when. he asked—" What is the use of our

discussing money bills when they come up to this house, if
we have no right to reject, as we admit we have no right to
alter there ?" (Cheers.) Noble lords will recollect that when
the Succession Duty Bile was sent up from the other house,
it was very warmly discus ed and debated by your lord-
ships. My noble friend, Lord Aberdeen—whose absence
on the present occasion I greatly deplore--was then at he
head of the Government—a man of high talent but of still
higher reputation, not alone in this country but through-
out Europe and the world. (Cheers.) That noble lord
has been a member of your lordships' house for 60 years,
and from his station, character, and acquirement; no one
can be more conversant with our privileges. What was
the language held by Lord Aberdeen in 1853 ?
" Now your lordships cannot alter a tittle of this bill ;
not a particle. You may, and this you have a full right to
do, throw it out on the second reading. (Loud cheers.)
That is perfectly within your lordships' competence to do."
It is for your lordships to consider, in this particular case,
whether it will be prudent and proper, having regard to the
interests of this county, that you should adopt such a
course. (Hear, hear.) My noble friend opposite has done
me the honour to cite my authority. -What was the nature
of the circumstances which led to the decision he has re-
ferred to ? It was stated that 400 years ago the Sovereign
had created a life peerage, but no instance had occured since
that time. The argument I made use of, which was sup-
ported by many noble lords, was that everything in this
country depends on long usage and prescription; when,
therefore no such right has been exercised for 400 years, and
no claim has been put forward during that period, it ought
not to be acted on, and cannot be considered as part of the
law and constitution of the country— particularly after the
many changes, including a revolution and a restoration,
which have taken place. (Hear, hear.) That was my argu-
ment; but does it apply to the present case? My lords, I
shall be able to show that within a recent period this right
which we claim has been acted on without dispute—(hear)
—not in one, two, or three cases merely, but in numerous
instances. I hold a list of these cases in my hand, and I
have selected the more modern. In 1809 a bill came up to
this house for continuing and granting certain duties on
malt. It was rejected. (Hear, hear.) lam net prepared
to say whether the bill was rejected in form, or whether,
according to the usual course, the motion was that it be
read a second time, or committed that day three months.
Again, in 1789 a bill was passed through the House of
Commons, and came up to your lordships, for imposing a
duty on cocoanuts. It was rejected on the 6th of August
in that year. A similar bill was brought up in 1790,
and again rejected; so that not only are there admis-
sions of our right by the House of Commons over
and over again, in the most distinct terms—
not only has there been no instance in which they have dis-
puted that right, but cases have occurred in which it has
been exercised by this house without any complaint on the
part of the Commons. But a distinction is drawn by my
noble frienl opposite, who says those were bills for impos-
ing taxes ; this a bill to relieve from taxation—(hear)—and
my noble friend alleges that a aide distinction is thereby
created. (Hear.) That is certainly a novel doctrine ; I never
heard it broached before; there is no precedent for it, no
authority can be cited in its favour, no dictum even is given.
But as regards our practice, I hold in my hand a list of cer-
tain bills for relief from duties, which were rejected by your
lordships' house. (Cheers.) In the year 1790 a bill was
passed through the Commons to relieve the coasting trade
of Great Britain by removing stamps on certain documents,
and abolishing stamps respecting the Isle of Man. This
bill, which I believe had reference to smuggling, was re-
jected by your lordships, and there was not a murmur of
complaint that I can find even a trace of. What becomes
then of my noble friend's distinction ? What becomes of
his 400 years' prescriptive right which he cited against my-
self ? (Hear.) But I should be sorry that the case rested
even here. In 1805 a bill was sent to this house for abo-
lishing certain fees payable to customhouse officers in Eng-
land ; that was a bill for relief from taxation, and it was re-
jeeted by your lordships without complaint. In 1807 a
similar step was taken with respect' to a bill which proposed
to abolish payments to customhouse officers in Ireland, and
no complaint followed. In 1808 a measure was carried
through the Commons to repeal duties on coals carried coast-
wise in Wales, and granting others in lieu thereof. Here was
a bill to remove and to impose taxation, embracing conse-
quently both alternatives, and it likewise was rejected by
your lordships. (Cheers.) So much for the authority and
antiquity of the claim which is said to be obsolete ! Then,
my lords, in 1811, there was a bill passed by the other house
to suspend for one year the duties on corn, to ask for distil-
lation of spirits in England, and to permit the distillation
of spirits from sugar. That was a bill for the relief of du-
ties, and the amount of those duties was considerable.
That bill was discussed in the House of Commons at great
length. All the agricultural interest took part in the discus-
sion, and when it came down to this house it was again dis-
cussed at great length. Lord Liverpool was then Minister.
He took part in the discussion, as dil also Lord Bathurst,
the Minister for the Colonies. After a long debate the bill
was thrown out. Did Lord Liverpool, the Minister of the
day under whose authority the bill was introduced, did he
make any complaint ? (Hear.) Did the House of Com-
mons make any complaint? Not a single syllable. (Hear,)
So far from that, when a few days afterwards a bill was
brought in to make amends for the loss of duties, he merely
said, " I introduce this bill in consequence of the rejection
of a bill by the other house." (Hear.) Never was a sub-
ject more fully discussed than that was. But this is a
stronger case. It is a case of a tax in progress. The mo-
ment a bill has passed this and the otherhouse, and received
the Royal assent, it becomes the law of the land. All in-
dividual authority on the part of the House of Commons is
at an end—has terminated, and the house has no more au-
thority over it than your lordships have. It is a law which,
like any other law, can only be revoked by the joint action
of the two Houses of Parliament and with the consent of the
Crown. (Hear.) I was surprised to hear my noble friend
the other day admit that the whole permanent revenue of
the country could not be touched by the House of Commons
without the consent of this house. However I think I
have gone sufficiently, if not too much, into this matter—
(cheers)—but the question is of immense importance, not
only to the constitution, or to this or the other house, but to
the country. (Hear.) I have stated distinctly what rights
we claim and what rights we have exercised. We exercise
those rights not for ourselves, but for the people. I hear
it said that the House of Commons may order their officers
not to levy a tax of excise. The House of Commons may
annihilate that or any other law, and leave the responsibility
upon their unhappy agents who are instruments of their
caprices. But that is not a subject for discussion here. It
would be indecent in me—it would not be respectful to the
House of Commons nor to your lordships—it would not be
respectful to the Sovereign—it would not be respectful to -
wards myself, were I to enter upon such a consideration. I
hear it said, too, that a discussion took place respecting a
substitution 'of a penny of income-tax for these duties,
and that the substitution was agreed to. Whether a
penny of the income-tax was or was not meant
as a substitute for these duties I have no means
of knowing, but this I do know, that we could not strike
out that penny, We had no right to amend that bill, and if
we had attempted to amend it wo should have been told at
once it was an invasion of the privileges of the House of
Commons. This is the answer I give to the charge of
" sharp practice," which I believe an hon. member who
has considerable influence over some classes in this country
to whom I have before referred has endeavoured to fix upon
your lordships. I may be told there is a surplus. That is a
perilous matter into which I do not choose to enter. It forms
no part of the programme which I have marked out for my-
self. I leave that to my noble friend opposite (Lord Mon••
teagle), who I have no doubt will sufficiently clear up that
portion of the subject. The question comes to this :—lf
your lordships arc satisfied, as you must be, that you have
not only the power but the constitutional right to reject this
bill, and if you are:satisfie 1 that there is an actual deficiency,
that next year there must be a most enormous deficiency,
and that the present state of Europe is such as to create
continual anxiety—(hear, hear)—then I ask your lordships
will you consent to give up, not for the present year only,
but permanently, a sum of nearly a million and a half ?
(Cheers) That is the proposition I put to your lordships,
and lam satisfied what your answer will be. As I said I
would confine myself to this question of privilege, I will
only further observe, that the illusions, perhaps I may say
the delusions, created by the introduction of the budget
seem to have passed away and we have learnt that although
brilliant eloquence has charms, yet, like other seductions, it
is not without its dangers. (Laughter.) The same schemes
may bear the impress of genius, of imprudence, of rashness.
Satis eloquentice, sapientice ',arum is not an irreconcileable
combination. (Hear, hear.) If my noble friend will move
the amendment of which ho has given notice I shall give
him, for the reasons I have stated, my cordial support.
(Loud cheers.)
Lord REDESDALE said that members of the House of
Commons complained that they could not procure access to
the places set apart for them, and accordingly the bar was
ordered to be cleared of all persons except members of the
House of Commons and younger sons of Peers.
Lord MONTEAGLE then rose and said,—l have been
delighted with the arguments I have heard from my noble
and learned friend, which are so conclusive upon what is,
after all, the great question out of doors. After that
speech I do not think any one will be disposed to question
the full and unqualified right, as admitted by high autho-
rities and sanctioned by undisturbed practice, of this house
dealing with any money bill, either by accepting or reject-
ing it. If the arguments you have heard have carried, as
they must have done, conviction to your lordships' minds
there is an end at once and for ever of the charges that have
been loosely and unpardonably brought against this house.
It is but a small matter that one of the humblest members
of this house, like myself, should have been made a special
object of attack, and that personal motives should have been
attributed to me. Allow me, in the first place, to say that,
however gratified and honoured I may be with the approval
by the noble earl opposite (Lord Derby) of the motion of
which I have given notice, yet, as he has stated elsewhere,
I beg to say that I make this motion as a matter of duty,
and there is:n,, combination to deal with this question either
in an objectionable or unparliamentary manner. My noble
friend, I believe, was as ignorant of my intention to give
the notice as I was entirely unprepared for his declaration
of opinion on the subject. If it be true that this is our
right and privilege, that it does not rest upon our own as-
sertion of the fact, and that such a right is as useful to the
other branch of the Legislature as it is valuable to ourselves,

there is an end at least of all the charges of ottr reeking to
interfere with the privileges of the House of Commons. I
must say, for one, though it may be presumptuous in me to
use the express:on, that the members of this house are as
little minded to injure the privileges of the Hous4 of Com-
mons as they are unwilling to abandon their own. (Hear,
hear.) In both cases I believe that the privileges of Parlia-
ment form an essential part of the constitution of the coup•
try. Like the rest of the constitution, those privileges
have grown by degrees ; and I agree with the President of
the Council that it is to comparatively recent times, after
our constitution passed through the throes of revolution,
that we must really refer far guidance upon this question,
and not to times long antecedent. Those who are but slightly
acquinted with the Parliamentary history of England must
know that in earlier times the Lords exercised a very dis-
tinct and separate power with respect to money bills and
taxation. But it is unnecessary to go back to remote history.
We may more safely refer to a period when our constitu-
tion was matured, and if we do so we shall find that in this
essential matter the right of the House of Lords has never
yet been brought into question. This part of the argument
on the other side has been so conclusively swept away by
my noble and learned friend that it would be unbecoming
in me to advert to it at any length. In addition, however,
to what has fallen from him—not in corroboration, because
no corroboration of mine is needed—l may point out one or
two instances in which this matter has not been left in
doubt, but has been decided after solemn deliberation.
Many of these instances occurred during the existence of
strong Governments, exercising, especially in this house, a
strong influence. On ono of these occasions the question
was adjudicated upon after the Lords had been summoned.
The house then pronounced a unanimous decision on the
subject; the decision was communicated to the House of
Commons, and from that time to the present, there is no
instance of cavil, of dispute, or of protest on the part of the
House of Commons. One of the first of these instances
occurred in 1758 upon a bill to discontinue for a limited
time the duties payable on tallow imported from Ireland.
A motion was made for the postponement of the measure
for two months, and the bill was lost. 1.-.0- 1 ~p, %.% ill
see that the same principle was invo! N‘ hethor the sus-
pension was for two months or l',/ :guy other period of time.
The bill was thrown out l.y this house, and no objection was
raised by the Commons. I have heard a distinction made
between the action of the Lords in respect of Excise anti of
Customs. Now here is a case of an Excise tax. 1n.1816 a
bill came before the Lords "to repeal the duties of excise
on stone bottles, and to impose other duties in lieu thereof."
A motion that it be read a second time that day six months
was made and carried, and the House of Commons made no
complaint. As an officer of the other house, I mean Mr.
May, is stated to have expressed an opinion to the contrary
of that which I am advancing, I wish to read a passage
from his very able text book on the law and practice of
Parliament. After alltiling to the legal right of the
llcuse of Commons to originate taxation, and to the usage
of Parliament which precludes us from amending a money
bill, ho quotes the resolution to which my noble and
learned friend adverted, which, while it affirms the
right of the Commons to originate money bills and
send them here, clearly reserves to the House of Lords
the fullest power of rejecting them. Mr. May says :
—" The functions of the House of Lords in matters
of supply and taxation are thus reduced to a single
assent or negative." (Hear.) And again :—" The Crown
demands money, the Commons grant it, the Lords assent
to the grant." But I wish your lordships to consider that,
by law and Parliamentary usage, the rights of the House
of Commons are not merely limited to the origination, the
framing, and the passing of money bills. Another import-
ant right which they exclusively possess is the appropria-
tion of the sums so raised. We have nothing to say to the
votes of supply and to the framing of the Appropriation
Act. We cannot alter a single grant which appears inany
one of those Acts of Parliament; but with regard to one and
all of them we have full and entire power to deal with them
as a whole, and to adopt or reject them. Now, when it is
said " reject this bill, and you create a sum of £1,400,000 in
addition to the supplies which have been already voted," I
wish to point out that not one farthing of this sum can be
issued or applied to the public service, except upon a legis-
lative authority derived from the House of Commons, on
with them, ono which it is peculiarly their func-
tion to frame, and in which we are not entitled to make the
slightest alteration. I said just now that a sum of £1,400,009
was affected by this hill. But, in truth, the amount re-
specting which you are called upon to decide by your vote
to-night is not £1,400,000; it is a perpetual annuity to that
extent. (Hear.) If you adopt the suggestion of the House
of Commons, you will part with a sum of £36,000,000 ster-
ling, that being the capitalised value of the annuity which
you are now called upon by the other house:to put an end to.
Let me again remind your lordships that nothing can be paid
out of the Consolidated Fund except by a vote of Parliament,
and when we are accused of wishing to diminish the power
of the House of Commons, it should be recollected that not
one single farthing of that sum can be appropriated except
by a Bill which originates with the House of Commons. It
has been already intimated that a desire has been expressed
on the part of some to diminish the security now afforded by
certain charges being placed on the Consolidated Fund, and
it has even been suggested that if it could be contrived to
make the taxation of this country generally distasteful
and abhorrent to the community, they would then cut
down the establishments for the purpose of getting rid of
the taxation. This has been suggested in quarters fully
aware, I should have thought, of the dangers of such a
doctrine, for every step taken in the way of diminishing the
security now created for the payment of charges on the
Consolidated Fund strikes eminently at the whole credit of
this country. With respect to the allegation that is now
proposed to reimpose the paper duty, I would observe that it
is not your lordships' vote that reimposes that duty, sup •
posing you should reject the present bill ; for that sum of
£1,400,000 rests not on your act but on the law of the land,
on the right of the Queen, Lords, and Commons to grant the
sum, and the grant of the suns cannot be repealed except by
the sanction of Parliament. But in this matter, as the noble
and learned lord reminded the house, we are charged in
rather unusual language with sharp practice, for it is said
we have accepted the vote of £1,000,000 from the income •
tax, in the first place, and now we refuse to remit the paper
duty. With regard to the Income-tax Bill, it willbe remem-
bered that when it was passing through the third
reading in this house, I desired some further delay, but the
Government declaring that public inconvenience would re-
sult from the postponement of the measure, I abstained
from insisting on its postponement, upon the distinct un-
derstanding that we should not be prejudiced in the discus-
sion of the Paper Duty Bill by the fact of having passed
the Income-tax Bill without discussion. (Hear, hear. It is
said that one penny in the income-tax was a substitute for
the paper duty, but if the present bill be registered, there
will be nothing to prevent the House of Commons then
diminishing, if it thinksproper, the income-tax, or reducing
by one half the war-duties payable on tea and sugar. (Hear.)
Our rejection of the present bill actually gives to the Com-
mons the power of applying £1,000,000 sterling in the way
which in their judgment would be most conducive to the
public service. I wish to call attention to what will be the
result of repealing this duty on our public credit. I ask
any one conversant with mercantile affairs whether the
position of this country at present would be creditable, or I
might almost say decent, in the case of any private indi-
vidual who depends on his credit ? You have now a debt
which you are bound to pay at a given time. ln November
you are bound by law to pay the owners of the Exchequer
bonds £l,O 0,000. What is the statement of the Chancellor
of the Exchequer ? In his place in Parliament he gets up
and says, at the very time when he diminishes his revenue
by £1,400,000, " I am not in a position to make provision
for that debt." The fairer statement would have been, " I
am putting myself in a position in which I cannot pay it."
And how do you stand ? This is not the first time you have
made a postponement of this kind, nor will it be the last.
There are two other sums of £1,000,000 each whch have
been carried on and made charges on the income of 1862
and 1863. For those you will also have to provide ; and
you have now established a precedent which a private mer-
chant could not venture to act on without forfeiting his
credit. Let me say a word about the condition in which
we stand. It has been said that the great object of the
money arrangements of the present year is to leave every-
thing, as far as possible, free and open for the decision of
Parliament in the next session ; yet at the same time it is
proposed that you should take a step which compromises
the whole case there was to be discussed, and commits you
to two propositions—one being the reckless substitution of
direct taxation falling on the property of the country for
indirect taxation incident to the consumption of various
articles. That step cannot be taken without the greatest
peril. (Hear.) Take, for example, the property tax ; it was
proposed by Mr. Pitt to carry them through a terrific
struggle. The proposition was that while the tax- should be
considered a war tax it might be continued far one year in
peace, for the purpose of paying the outstanding expenses
of war. Well, Lord Liverpool was at the head of a strong
Government, but he was unable to defend the tax. The
dislike to it was so strong that it was not only thrown over -
board, but a motion was made in the House of Commons
that all the documents relating to it should bo destroyed, to
preserve the country from its re-enactment, but:we have had
experience in our time. Sir C. Wood when Chancellor of
the Exchequer proposed the continuance of the property tax
for a year. The House of Commons consented to the propo

sition, but itappointed a committee to inquire into the mode
of collecting the tax, and the result was that the tax was

swept from the face of the earth. Other en, :c- n

similar kind have occurred, but in this yelii al,,cter is

even Worse, inasmuch as the tax is 2as,ed for a portion of

he year only—the most dangcous mode of dealing with

such an impost. But, ,11:.or all, the real question is, have
we any money to spare? If we have, let us dispose of it in
. _

a truly English way, by paying our debts and discharging
honestly the engagements we have undertaken. I deny,
however, that wo have a surplus. We have been told, in-

deed, that by the falling in of certain annuities a large sum
—something like £2,ooo,ooo—is at our disposal, and that
we may fairly apply it for the relief of the trade and com-
merce of the country. That is a pretty imagination, but it
is purely imagination. Thore is no fact to support it. The
payment of that money was anticipated before the annuities
fell in, because you have repealed other taxes ccntempora-
neously with the expiration of the annuities, and therefore
not a single k apex Ice of the £2,000,000 now remains avail-
able. But it may bo said that wQ have other means at our

disposal. I third:, however, that if wo limit our inquiry t
the present year—although as prudent men we ought to
consider what will be the demands of 1861—(hear)—we
shall find nothing consolatory in the prospect before us.
The balance upon an estimated income of £10,000,000 is
only £174,000. Such a surplus cannot inspire confidence in
our financial position; but have we really got it ? No sueh
thing. Even in the short interval which has elapsed between
the opening of the budget and the present time that £474,000
has gone after the £2,000,000 of annuities, and has vanished
into thin air. (Hear, hear.) Nor is that all. How is the
balance of £171,000 produced ? It has already passed away,
but aslong as it existed it was created by the most extraor-
dinary combination of discordant ways of appearing rich
without being so that ever was beheld, either in public or
in private life. There is one sum of £1,400,000 which is
made up of payments that would otherwise fall in next year
—(hear)--and which no more belongs to the income of the
present year than do the rents of any of your lordships'
estates for the year 1861 properly form part of your income
in 1860. (Hear, hear.) I think, therefore, you will see that,
instead of a surplus, we have to deal with a deficiency. But
is this all? In the case of the China war there has been an
attempt to transfer a charge from the present to the follow-
ing year—to say nothing about it until the pressure became
irresistible, and to leave your lordships to imagine that no
such charge really existed. I think that I have accurately
ascertained the result of the answers given to the questions
put by noble friend near me (Earl Grey). The native
troops sent to China are to be paid out of the military
chest, but that chest was not provided for this Chinese
war, and cannot properly be applied to the payment of its
expenses, unless Parliament votes a suns to replace that
which is taken from it. If that sum is voted you must place
it in yoar balance-sheet, and it will make your position
more desperate than it appears to be at present. But that
sum is borrowed without any means of repaying it. Both
the debt and the means of repayment are kept from your
knowledge; and I say it will be unpardonable if, evtn at
this period of the session, a vote is not taken with a view
to replacing in the military chest the sums which have been
so advanced from it. No provision is made in the army esti-
mates for the pay of the native troops serving in China;
the vote of credit granted this year is for the expenses of
the past one. No estimate is presented for the expenses of
the China war during the current year; the army estimates
cover only part of the expenses of the British force in China
and no. part of the expense of the native force, and large
arges under these heads will have to be provided for
hereafter. There is another destruction of that which has
already been destroyed,—this imaginary balance. You have
also had a debt paid. The Spanish Government has been
both sufficiently rich and sufficiently well disposed to pay
its debts; and the sum so received you have carried to the
credit of this balance-sheet. During the progress of the
budget there has been an extra loss upon the wine duties of
£171,C00, and many of the penny duties upon trading ope-
rations have been abandoned, and yet your lordships are
called upon, without a full, clear, and distinct explanation
to show that you are parting with your own money, and
not with that which belongs to others, for whom you are
trustees, to abandon a tax to which there is but slight ob-
jection. Although I may be supposed, from habit, to
view taxation with a more favourable eye than can be ex-
pected from those who have not held the disagreeable office
of national tax-gatherer, I am not going to praise either
the paper duty or any other tax. No doubt, it would be
better if you could abolish both that and many other
duties; but you cannot afford it. I remember that Mr.
Hunt, a member of the House of Commons, a man of no
great observation, but of considerable shrewdness and com-
mon sense, said what was very true, that you could not
raise a large income like £70,000,000 sterling without tax-
ing the millions; you might attempt to substitute direct
taxation in order to relieve the lower class, but you could
not tell how that would influence wages, and thus affect
them. (Hear, hear.) One of the most extraordinary
commendations which has been passed upon this budget
is that you are reducing the subjects of taxation; that you
are about to depend for all the means of meeting the en-
gagements of the country upon, I think, 16 articles. Why,
that augments the danger of your position, by diminishing
your resources It is a practice which is contrary to the
old principle of taxation, and entirely at variance with the
system of Mr. Pitt, than whom, I say it without admiring
his general politics,—there never was with regard to com-
mercial subjects and general views of finance a greater,
wiser, or more successful Minister. It has up to this time
been admitted by all writers upon the subject that if you
wish to diminish pressure and lessen danger you should in-
crease the service over which that pressure is to extend.
Any other doctrine may be plausible, and may be popular
for a time, but unless it tends to the general security and
credit of the country the poorer classes as well as the richer
will suffer. (Hear, hear.) How, my lords, will you stand
next year? All this time you have heard nothing as to
that. Suppose that all is right for the present year, how
will you stand in the following one ? I will assume the
estimated income for the present year to be £70,500,000.
Next year you will lose, as compared with that sum,
£700,000, the proportion of the paper duty which is paid
this year; and, unless you break your word as to relieving
the people from the war duties on tea and sugar, a further
sum, which, together with that, will amount to £1,500,000.
Then you can't expect to call up a further sum upon the malt
and hop credits. You will have exhausted the whole amount
that you can obtain in that way. Therefore your income
next year will necessarily be £1,400,000 less than that of the
present year. You had also taken into account for this year
one-half of the casual payment received from Spain. Now,
assuming the expenditure to be the same as that of 1860,
there will be a clear deficiency for the next year of £11,033,000.
I pray your lordships' attention to that fact. But that is not
all. There is a variety of other things which you will have to
provide for. Have we not all heard of a scheme for the national
defences ? Information on that subject was promised to Par-
liament some time ago, but it has not been produced. We
are, therefore, left to conjecture as to the probable cost of
carrying out that scheme ; but the surmise is that it will
involve an expenditure exceeding 7,000,000 or 8,000,000
sterling. I may be told that sufficient provision has been
made for this object in the present year; but that only shows
that a very large sum will be required for what I must pre-
sume is a necessary work in the course of next year. Such,
then, is the condition in which I apprehend you will find
yourselves in 1861; and I put it to the house whether, under
these circumstances, your lordships are warranted in de-
priving the revenue of a capital sum of 36 millions. It has
been said, indeed, that the income from the paper duty can-
not be collected. To that assertion, however, there is this
manifest and triumphant answer, that this tax is the very
beat and most economically collected portion of our whole
revenue, and that it is increasing every year. The total
expense of collecting an annual sum of a million and a
quarter is only £6,250. If any noble lord should doubt that
statement, he will find it supported by the authority of Sir
Henry Parnell's commission of inquiry in 1835, which has
already been referred to. The report of that commission
contains returns showing that no greater a reduction than
the sum of £6,250 would be effected in the charge for the
Excise establishment by the repeal of the paper duty. Com-
pare that item with the cost of collecting your Customs'
duties, with the cost of collecting other portiens of your Ex-
cise revenue, or even with the cost of collecting your pro-
perty tax, and you will see that you are now asked to part
with the easiest and cheapest collected part of your entire
system of taxation. I had the honour of myself proposing
the remission of one-half the paper duty, and since that mess
sure was adopted the revenue under the reduced tax has in-
creased from £715,000 to £1,400,000. The augmentation
has been steady and continuous, and the exportation of paper
has also rapidly increased. (Hear, hear.) I ask your lord-
ships, then, by agreeing to my amendment, to give the
House of Commons the opportunity of dealing with this
source of taxation next session, when avowedly the whole of
our system of finance must be brought under their review.
Do not, by assent to this bill, let them practically decide
the fate of British finance for years to come by ono hasty
and ill-considered vote. I appeal to their own good
sense to leave this part of the revenue to be discussed
hereafter in connexion with all other branches of the
public income, when it can be seen whether we have the
money to spare for dispensing with this tax, and whether
its repeal would involve smaller loss to the Exchequer,
and afford greater relief to the community than the
remission of any other impost. I do not ask the
House of Commons to surrender any of its valued privileg s.
I do not call upon your lordships to affirm that circum-
stances may not yet arise when it will be expedient to abo-
lish the paper duty ; but 1 hope by our vote to-night we
shall induce the House of Commons to claim for itself what
it ought to claim as a matter of prudence and sound policy,
viz., an opportunity of wisely and dispassionately consider-
ing the whole question, not of the paper duty only, but of
that duty as contrasted with all the other taxes which press
upon the trade and industry of the country. My noble friend
referred to the cause of education, and the advantage which
it would derive from a repeal of the paper duties; but if he
will take any one of the excellent school-books which are
circulated under his administration, and weigh the small
fractional part of the price which the paper duty represents,
he will agree with me that it can form but a very inconsi-
derable argument for the abolition of the tax under present
circumstances. Under the French treaty we are in this po-
sition—you have either a prohibition or a prohibitory duty
on the exportation of foreign rags ; and I should like to
know how any reduction of duty without an increased sup-
ply will give a relief to the consumer. It is only when you
can get the power of making more paper that the price will
be diminished in the market. It was not for the noble earl,
then, to use the hackneyed, threadbare, worn-out argument
insisting that the diffusion of knowledge was a reason for
parting with a million and a quarter of revenue. But I have
detained your lordships too long. I have endeavoured to
state the case in no adverse or disagreeable manner to the
Government. The -aoursc I have adopted upon this occasion
is one I have taken. every year when I thought any finan-
cial measure object donable. The noble earl opposite knows
well that on form er occasions when he was in the Govern-
ment I objected to some of his financial measures. I have
felt it right, from. the position I formerly held, and that
which I now hold, to give some attention to questions of
this kind, and to stat e my opinions on them, though some-
what distasteful, I fear, to many of your lordships. I beg
now, my lords, to move that this bill be read a second time
this day six months.. (Hear, hear.)
Lord DUFFEBJEN said that after anxious inquiry and
due deliberation he shad coma to the conclusion that it via.