The Sun.
London, England, 1860-07-06 00:00:00

THE SUN, LONDON, FRIDAY EVENING, JULY 6, 1860.

position from that in which it was at other periods of
our history. And if there be anything which may per-
haps be taken as settled in public opinion with re-
gard to the relative power of the different branches
of the legislature, it is that the course of things,
the spread of representation, the diffusion of knowledge, the

power of the r eers, and the effect of public opinion has been
that this house is daily increasing in its political power, in-

stead of diminishing in that respect, and therefore:, so far
from feeling any apprehension that the Lords would be able
to usurp the legitimate functions of this house, I an I per-
fectly convinced that if this house pursues a steady, a dig-

nificd, and a consistent course—if it abstains from any
thing that may savour of opposition or aggression; if it

stands upon its own, maintains its own rights, and affirms
that it has and will exercise, if necessary, the means of
making those rights respected—we need not have the
slightest doubt or apprehension—and I think it would be
disrespectful to the house to entertain any apprehension—
that whenever our re ,1 functions should be deliberately in-
vaded, we should be unable to maintain them in the face of
the country, and with the approval and sanction of the na-
tion. (Cheers.) I say then that these resolution, are fitted
for the occasion at the present moment. I thint's they de-
clare what our constitutional rights and functions are—
rights and functions which are interwoven, I may say, with
the whole history of the country—which no man can deny,
and which will not be denied, I will venture to ?say, by any
single individual either in the Houses of Parliament or in
any other part of the country—l think these resolutions
sufficiently establish our right. They point out that, if that
right should be invaded, we have in our own hands the
~ means of resisting that invasion. I think it would not have
been becoming, on an occasion on which there was an ap-
pearance, at all events, of an intention to invade our func-
tions, it would not have been right or decent for this house
to remain absolutely silent. That might have been con-
strued into a yielding a concession of the righ s and func-
tions which we ought to retain in our own hands. On
the other hand, I think we should not have raised our-
selves in public estimation, and I do not think we should
have done anything towards effectually maintaining
our rights, if we had thrown into these reso-
lutions anything that might appear to be the
commencement of hostilities with the other branch of the
legislature. It is of the utmost importance that as in our
constitution there are different branches, independent of
each other, each with powers of its own, but the harmoni-
ous action of whose powers is necessary to the working of
the constitution—it is most desirable not to commence an
unnecessary quarrel. The party which does that would
incur, I think, a grave responsibility. I will not believe
that it was the intention of the House of Lords to do so.
Some may think that I entertain too favour able a view as
regards that. (Hear, hear, from below the gangway.) I
state what I think about it, and I say that if we have not
proof sufficient to satisfy us that this was the first step to-
wards a new course of constitutional conduct, we had better
pursue the course which is now recomm ended to the adop-
tion of the house. I think that course is dignified—l think
it will be effectual. lam convinced in my own mind that
these resolutions going forth from this house will be a suf-
ficient warning to guard against any recurrence for the fu-
ture of that to which we most justly take objection. We
are not prepared to undo that which has been done. If it
were in ordinary times, under ordinary circumstances, we
should have advised this house to pass again that bill
which was rejected in the other house, to return it to them,
and to have obstructed all other business till it was passed;
to have exercised all those powers which we had in our
own hands, and to have rendered it necessary,for the other
House of Parliament to have passed that bill. But the
circumstances of the moment do not make that course of
action a convenient one. (A laugh.) That being so, I
say that unless we had felt at liberty to have returned that
bill in some shape or other, and to have insisted now, and
in this session, on the repeal of that particular duty, it is
more dignified of the house to Jake the course which it is
my duty to propose. I would only, in conclusion, urge
on the two Houses of Parliament that advice which a
great authority on parliamentary matters (Mr. Hatsoll)
has embodied in two pages of his work. After mention-
ing a series of transactions which he has quoted, he
proceeds thus :—" I would say to the Lords, that from the
history of all these transactions the conclusion to be drawn
is that it should be the endeavour of both houses, and of
every member of each house of Parliament, to take care in
their proceedings not to transgress those boundaries which
the constitution has wisely allotted to them, or to interfere
in those matters which, by the rules and practice of Parlia-
ment in former ages, are not within their jurisdiction; for
the rights and privileges of Parliament are interwoven
with the earliest establishment of government in this coun-
try." Sir, I would recommend that passage to the conside-
ration of the Lords. (Cheers and laughter.) To the House
of Commons I would venture to suggest another passage
from the same author. He says—" The sole and exclusive
right of beginning all aids and charges on the public, and
not suffering any alteration to be made by the Lords is suf-
ficiently guarded by the practice of the house here ex-
pressed, and it does not seem to be either for their honour
or advantage to push the matter further, and by asserting
privileges which might be subject to doubt and discussion,
thereby to weaken their claim to those clear and indubitable
rights which are vested in them by the constitution, and
have been confirmed to them by the constant and uniform
practice of Parliament." To refuse to the House of Lords
the abstract light of dissenting would bring us under the
censure of that passage. Ido not believe the house would
be disposed to follow up that course. I am inclined to think
that this house values that harmony which is so essential
between the two branches of the legislature for the manage-
ment of the affairs of the country. And if that must at all
times be, as it ought to be, the ruling and guiding feeling
of this house, I am sure that there is nothing in the pre-
sent aspect of affairs out of England, there is nothing in the
general aspect of the affairs of Europe and the world, which
would lead this house to think mole lightly than usual of
holding up to foreign nations the lamentable and humiliating
spectacle of a disunited legislature—of a divided people—of
an internal contest—at a time when it is essential for the
dignity, the honour, and interest of the country that we
should exhibit to all the world an harmonious unity of
action—a co-operation of all the estates of the realm for the
common interest and welfare of the people. (Cheers.)
Mr. COLLIER said that the first of the noble lord's re-
solutions was sufficiently explicit, but he could not compli-
ment the noble lord on the perspicuity of the two following
resolutions. (Hear, and a laugh.) He was not sure if it
was to be collected from them whether or not the Commons
had a right to complain of the proceedings of the House of
Lords, though, from the third resolution, he fancied they
had, or otherwise he hardly knew on what principle it was
declared that they were to take steps to prevent a recurrence
of what had been done. (Hear.) He had given notice of
an amendment, which would have remedied any ambiguity
in these resolutions. His amendment was to the effect
that the House of Lords by rejecting the Paper Duty
Repeal Bill had committed a violation of constitutional
usage. (Hear, hear.) Me used no hard words or strong
expressions, but the House of Lords had either committed
a breach of constitutional usage or it had not. If it had not,
he did not know what occasion there was for a resolution at
all—(hear, hear)—but if it had he did not see why the House
of Commons should shrink from declaring so. It had been
his intention to propose a resolution containing a definite
expression of the opinion of the house, but as hon. members
around him were in favour of a unanimous vote, and as he
should be running c muter to their feelings by proposing
his resolution, ho thought it would not be desirable that
he should prevent that unanimous decision which was
desired. Having been, however, a member of the select
committee, he might, perhaps, be allowed to explain the
views ho entertained. Not one word would fall from him
in the slightest degree disrespectful to the House of Lords.
All acquainted with history know that the country owed to
the Lords no small portion of its liberties, and their
privileges were as dear to them as were the privi-
leges of the Commons to the Commons. He did
net mean to assort that the vote of the House of
Lords on the Paper Duty Repeal Bill was illegal, but he
maintained that it was opposed to constitutional usage, and
that it was a breach of that tacit understanding which regu-
lated the functions of the two Houses of Parliament, and
without the maintenance of which the constitution could
not work. (Hear.) He might in one moment illustrate the
difference between that which was legal and that which was
constitutional. No one would dispute the legal right of
the Crown to veto any number of bills, but, if the Crown
vetoed every bill passed by the two houses, would any man
say that such a course was constitutional ? On this point
he would quote an authority respected by hon. gentlemen
opposite. Lord Lyndhurst, upon the discussion respecting
life peerages in the House of Lords, insisted as against the
Crown that there might be a strict legal right, the exercise
of which would be unconstitutional ; and the noble and
learned lord concluded by stating that one of the principles
of the constitution was long-continued usage. The same
argument was used by another learned lord, who observed
leges per desueludinunz abrogantur. In 1702 the House of
Lords protested against the Commons annexing to a bill of
supply a clause rendering the managers of Excise incapable
of sitting in Parliament, and if the Lords could assert
against the Commons the distinction between what was
legal and what was constitutional, they could not complain
that the distinction was asserted against themselves. Let
him now pint out to the house the effect of the recent pro-
ceeding of the Lords. The House of Commons passed a
budget, one of the main features of which was the repeal of
the paper duty, and another was the increase of the income
tax. There were several divisions in the house, and many
persons voted for the increase of the income tax, on the dis-
tinct understanding that the paper duty was to be repealed.
Now, the House of Lords accepted so ranch of the budget
as increased the income tax, but refused so much as re-
pealed the paper duty, and he maintained that there was
ao precedent for such a course. Let the house consider
what would have been the effect if the Paper Duty Repeal
Bill had been made to take effect at once. The duty
would immediately have been taken off, and then the
result of the Lords' decision would have been to reimpose
it. (Hear.) The decision of the House of Lords had been
defended on the ground that the House of Commons did not
take sufficient care to provide supplies for the exigencies of
the country, and that the House of Lords took a more com-
prehensive view of the circumstances of the country.
(Hear, from the Opposition side.) lie could understand
hon. gentlemen opposite taking that view; but the House
of Lords by the course they pursued differed from the'

Crown and the House of Commons, and undertook to sup-
ply a million and a quarter of money more than the two
former thought necessary. (Hear, hear.) He could not
assent to the doctrine hinted at by the noble lord, that the
constitutional right of the Lords to deal with a Money Bill
depended in any way on. the amount of the majority by
which it had been passed in the Lower House. (Hear,
hear.) Every one was familiar with the fact—but from its
, very familiarity it was not sufficiently borne in mind—that
I the Commons alone were addressed by the Sovereign on the
question of supply, and were alone thanked for supplies at
the end of the session. (hear, hear)—thought it would only
be an act of proper courtesy this year if the Royal Speech,
at the close of the session, thanked the Lords for the

4250,000 which they had added to the revenue. (Hear.)
Money Bills, moreover, were always sent back to the Com-
mons, instead of being presented by the Lords to the Crown.
Above all there was this fact, that for a great length of time
the votes of the House of Commons with respect to matters of

supply had all been treated as perfectly final and conclusive
(Hear.) Blackstone laid this down most distinctly. "The
results of this committee of ways and means," he wrote,
"are in general esteemed final and conclusive, though the
supply cannot be raised on the subject until directed by an
act of the whole Parliament. (Hear, hear.) Yet no moneyed
man would scruple to advance a large sum of money to the
Government on the credit of a bare vote of the House of
Commons." Blackstone, the most accurate of writers, would
never have penned these words if the House of Lords had
ever dealt with a budget as they had dealt with this. (Hear.)
Lord Chatham, too, was equally explicit on this point. In
speaking on the bill for taxing America, he said, " Taxation
is no part of government or of the legislative power. It is
the voluntary gift of the Commons alone. In legislation
the three estates of the realm are alike concerned, but the
concurrence of the Lords and the Crown to a tax is only
necessary to clothe it with the force of law. The gift to the
Crown is in the Commons alone." This was the faith in
which we had been brought up, and, acting on this faith,
the House of Commons had voted a large amount of taxes
on a permanent footing instead of merely annually, in the
belief and understanding that the House of Lords would
never interfere to prevent the revocation of them. The
House of Commons never would have voted the sugar duties
or the malt duties as permanent revenues if they had under-
stood that the Lords could interpose to prevent their aboli-
tion at any time. (Hear, hear.) The very appointment of
this Committee of Precedents was a proof that the act of the
Lords had taken everybody by surprise. It was said by
some people that the Lords had only done what they had
been accustomed to do before, and the rejection of the
Church-rates Abolition Bill was cited as an instance ;
but, if that were an analogous case, why, when that
bill was rejected, did not the noble viscount move
for a committee of precedents? (Hear, hear.) The
appointment of a committee of precedents, it must be re-
membered, was a grave proceeding, never adopted by the
Commons except when their privileges were seriously me-
naced by the Crown or the Lords. The committee had not
thought it necessary in their search for precedents to go
further back than the year 1628. The most important pre-
cedents occurred after that year, and it was unquestiOnably
most importantto ascertainwhat had been the practice since
the Revolution, at which time the constitution might be
said to have been finally settled. But it must be borne in
mind that, though it was then settled, it was settled upon
the old foundations. One of the oldest and most valued of
those foundations was the exclusive right of the Lower
House to tax thepeople. That right was as old as the house
itself. The House of Commons seemed to have broken the
egg full-fledged as far as its powers of taxation were con-
cerned ; they were coeval with it—it was called into exist-
ence as an instrument of taxation. In the 9th of Edward
11. there was an act entered on the rolls of Parliament, in
which both houses concurred, to enable the King to raise
troops ; but the grant of money was stated to be from the
Commons alone. (Hear, hear.) In the three following
reigns the Commons asserted again and again their exclu-
sive right to tax thepeople. During the reigns of the princes
of the house of Tudor the rights of both houses were to a
considerable extent in abeyance, both being overawed by
the Crown; but neither Henry VIII. nor Elizabeth ever
ventured to dispute the rights of the House of Commons in
matters of taxation to the extent they were disputed after-
wards by James and Charles. In 1640 the same right which
had existed for centuries was nobly asserted by Pym on be.
half of the House of Commons. On that occasion the Loris
sent a message to the Commons to the effect that it would
be desirable to begin with supply before any other business
VW entered upon ; and they prefaced their communication
with the memorable admission, " on all these considera-
tions, although my lords would not meddle with matters
of subsidy, which belongs properly and naturally to you—
no, not so much as to give you advice therein—yet they
have thought it right," &c. The House of Lords in the
present day had done a good deal more than givt advice,
they had differed from the House of Commons on a question
of supply, and had rejected a bill in reference to it which
the Commons had agreed to. (Cheers.) Mr. Pym, in his
speech at the conference, declared that their lordships, in
voting it to be just and necessary that matter of supply
should have precedence of other business, had "not only
meddled with matter of supply, but as far as in them lay
had concluded both the matter and order of proceeding;
which the House of Commons took to be a breach of privi-
lege." On all great occasions the House of Commons sub-
sequently asserted their rights by resolution; and ho would
be able to show that the precedents which had now been
collected were in no way applicable to the proceedings taken
by the House of Lords. These precedents were divided
into two classes, those in which the Lords had amended
money bills, and those in which they had rejected them.
If the question they were now considering had been the
right to amend he should have felt under much ,greater
difficulty, as the precedents in favour of that course were far
more numerous than those in which bills had been rejected
altogether. (Hear.) It was to be borne in mind that the
Lords had never relinquished their right to amend money
bills, but had strongly maintained their power of doing so.
' And, although it was said in debate that this claim was
abandoned, such a concession could not bind them any more
than an admission by the Attorney-General at a conference
would be binding on the House of Commons. They had
never denied that the House of Lords had power to deal
with all questions save those of taxation; and to maintain
that bills like those relating to church-rates or highways
were beyond the province of the Upper House because in-
cidentally powers of taxation were conferred by them would
be an encroachment on the functions of that assembly. But
on looking over the cases which had been cited as precedents
he did not find one in which a bill for repealing or altering
a tax had been rejected purely on financial grounds. In five
of the 34 instances questions of religion were involved ; six
others related to subjects such as regulation of highways,
the sale of game, and the relief of the poor ; 18 more were
measures affecting trade or agricultural interests; and the
Coasting Trade Bill and Works Bill, OM had been
specially referred to, really turned on the question of pro-
tection or free trade. The preamble of the Stone Bottles
Bill, on which the claim of the House of Lords was mainly
founded, expressly stated that it was desirable to protect
the glass manufacture of the country. The remaining cases
cited as precedents could not be classified under the heads
which he had already quoted. Two of them were bills pre
venting Custom-house officers from levying gratuities on
persons with whom their business brought them into con-
nexion, and Had nothing whatever to do with the taxation
of the public. The next was the Tobacco and Snuff Bill,
which contained 177 clauses with a great variety of regula-
tions applicable to the whole tobacco and -snuff trade, and
that being so it formed no precedent at all, for no one in his
senses could deny the right of the House of Lords to deal
with it. (Hear, hear.) The Wine Merchants' Bonds Bill
was one founded on a petition of some merchants who
prayed to be relieved front paying interest on their bonds
for duties they having already paid the principal. It was a
frivolous case, so small, in fact, that you could not expect
the House of Commons to notice it. De minintis non curat
lex. It was not to be supposed that the Commons were
always awake to such small attacks on their privileges.
(Hear.) These were all the precedents where the Lords
had postponed or rejected bills for repealing or altering
duties or charges on the people. One or two of these bills
had been dropped by the Government, others had been
dropped on account of amendments made in committee or
through the lateness of the session. (Hear.) With regard
to bills of supply rejected by the Lords, some involved the
question of protection, others were " tack" bills, comprising
a hotchpotch of entirely different subjects, for which reason
it was incumbent on the House of Lords, in conformity
wfth one of their standing orders, to reject them. The
Lottery Bill, from which Mr. Pitt in 1790 proposed to raise
a revenue, was not thrown cut as part of the budget, but
because of ono of the criminal provisions which it contained.
When the Corn Law Bill of 1827 was abandoned by the
Government in the House of Lords, owing to an amend-
ment made in committee, Mr. Canning said :
" I presume the House of Commons is not so reduced as
to abjure what its members have declared to be necessary
principles, to rescind their deliberate resolutions, and to
throw away as waste paper that bill whioh they have so
much and so carefully considered, merely because in a cer-
tain assembly, which, for many reasons, is entitled to our
respect, they did not happen to be entertained with that
courtesy which might have been expected." And headdesi
—" If there be a single spark of pride or of shame in the
II ouse, they will not submit to it."
(Cheers.) In 1853, Lord Ellenborough proposed to put off
the Soap Duties Repeal Bill for one week, and Lord Aber-
deen then asserted the trite constitutional doctrine,—
,4 If (he said) the greatest calamity that could befall this
country should be imminent, why, even then, he did not
think it was the duty of the House of Lords to interfere and
prevent the relief afforded to the people by the repeal of
these duties. (Cheers.) If it should happen that the House
of Commons should determine that this country shall be
placed in a state of war, why the House of Commons would
undoubtedly provide the means for carrying it out."
(Cheers.) Lord Derby, on this occasion, used language
differing very much from that which he had employed in
1860. He said the members of the Opposition were not dis-
posed to bring that house in collision with the Commons.
His lordship therefore knew, in 1853, that the rejection of
such a bill would bring the two houses into collision.
(Hear, hear.)
"His noble friend (continued Lord Derby) did not ask
them to refuse their consent to the measure sent up to them
by the House of Commons, but he asked them to be quite
satisfied, before they passed it, that the circumstances were
the same in whit h the House of Commons was placed when
they thought it expedient and practicable to take oft this
amount or taxation. . . . Would it not be prudent to
keep that amount is hand, in order that the House of Cern-

mons might have an opportunity of judging whether, under
the new circumstances, they could afford to dispense with
this tax? . . . It appeared to him that a short delay
was the course dictated by prudence and sound sense."
The upshot was, that the motion that the bill be postponed
fur a week was negatived without a division. Ho had now
gone through the various precedents which bore upon the
question at issue, and the result of their examination ap-

peered to him to be that there was no evidence-to show that

the House of Lords had ever rejected a b 11 imposing or
repealing a tax upon purely financial grounds, and proceed-
ing upon the notion that it was their duty to square the
income and expenditure of the country. It behoved hon.
members then well to weigh the consequences of the exer-

cise of the new functions which the House of Lords had

taken it upon themselves to discharge. The immediate re•

suit of calmly acquiescing in its exercise must be that upon
no future occasion could a tax be remitted by a vote of the
House of Commons, and that it would be necessary for
merchants, before making arrangements in conformity with
a financial scheme to which the House of Commons had

given its sanction, to ascertain, if possible, the views upon
the subject by which the members of the other House of

Parliament were animated. (Hear, hear.) The whole
mercantile world would thus be thrown into confusion, and
the utmost inconvenience would arise. (Hear, hear.) It
seemed to him, he might add, most desirable that if the
House of Lords were to be permitted to retain the power
which they claimed they should be furnished with the esti-
mates—for which they had often applied, but which they
never got, Mr, :eat having on one occasion complacently
and firmly refused such an application—in order that they
might be provided with information upon the financial sub-
jeets on which they would have to decide. It might, more-
over, be convenient that the Chancellor of the Exchequer
should sit in the House of Lords, it being left to a Secre-
tary of State to explain the nature of the budget to the
House of Commons. (A laugh.) He trusted, however,
that the noble lord at the head of the Government was right
in believing that the House of Lords did not mean to per-
severe in the course upon which they had so recently en-
tered. The decision at which they had arrived on the Paper
Duty Bill had, in his opinion, done more to disturb the con-
stitutional functions of both branches of the Legislature
than any proceeding which had taken place in our time,
and the very fact, he should contend, that the House of
Commons was obliged to take steps to prevent a repetition
of that decision, and to alter their mode of procedure with
that object, furnished in itself a conclusive argument that
the vote of the House of Lords had in it something novel.
(Hear.) The eyes of the country, he felt assured—not-
withstanding all that had been said about the apathy
which prevailed upon the question out of doors—were upon
the representatives of the people in the present discussion.
During its progress it would be well to bear in mind the
fact that those representatives had this very session vir-
fually rejected the Reform Bill, thereby refusing to assent
to the extension of popular rights. (Hear, hear.) How
far those to whom that extension had been promised by
statesmen on both sides of the house would be satisfied
with such a result he was not prepared to say, but if, in
addition to the denial of popular rights the House of Com-
mons were abandon the rights which it passed, and to show
itself a remiss and careless guardian of them, the probability
would be that it would ultimately forfeit the confidence of
the country, a forfeiture which would do more than any-
thing else to give an impulse to these democratic and dan-
gerous reforms the advent of which was dreaded by every
man who valued the constitution under which we lived.
(Hoar, hear.) The exclusive right of imposing taxes was
the very lifeblood of the House of Commons, and should
the time ever come when it should consent to abate one
jot of that right, then from that hour might be said to date
the decadence of the greatness of our system of Parlia-
mentary Government. (Cheers.)
Mr. CONINGHAM said he very much doubted whether
the country would receive the speech of the noble viscount
in the same manner as it had been received by hon. gentle-
men on the opposite side of the house. He was convinced
that the determination at which the Government had arrived
to place a mere idle record upon the journals of the house
must prove fatal to'it. He was satisfied that no Government
could stand against the contempt which must be felt by
the country when they saw the noble lord the member for
Tiverton stand up in that house as the defender of the
rights and privileges of the house of Lords instead of those
of the House of Commons. (Laughter and ironical cheers.)
Every word of palliation of the other house of Parliament
that had fallen from the noble lord was a censure upon his
colleague, the right hon. gentleman who sat by his side. It
was not a financial but a great and grave constitutional
question they had to consider. He had recently met his
constituents upon this very question. (Laughter.) He con-
sidered his constituents quite as intelligent and capable of
forming an opinion on this subject as any hon. gentleman
who laughed so rudely. (Renewed laughter.) They might
talk about the apathy of the country, but he was prepared
to deny that the country was apathetic, and to tell the Go-
vernment and those gentlemen on the Opposition benches
who were in favour of the course the Government proposed
to pursue, that they were tampering with very dangerous
elements when they ventured to bring the privileges of an
irresponsible house into collision with the rights and pri-
vileges of a responsible body of representatives. (Hear.)
He would toil them further, that the proceedings of that
evening would give rise to such an agitation in the coun-
try as they had not seen for many years. (Laughter, cheers,
and cries of " Oh, oh.") He thought that hon. gentlemen
should conduct themselves in a manner becoming to mem-
. bers of a deliberative assembly. (Hear, hear.) It was not
by rude and idle interruptions that ho was to be put down
and silenced. (Laughter.) He was an independent mem-
ber of that house, and a real and genuine representative—
(great laughter)—not of a rotten close borough—(in-
creased laughter)—but of a large and enlightened consti-
tuency. He was acting upon his right and privilege as a
member of that house, and he would again tell hon. gen-
tlemen opposite who jeered at him, that he was not to be
put down by such rude interruptions, which he did not
deserve, for he never intruded on the time or attention
of the house ; and when he did speak, he endeavoured to
keep as closely as possible to the point—(hear)—and he ap-
pealed to all who heard him, whether he had not always
conducted himself as became a member of Parliament and
a gentleman. (Cheers.) He rose simply for the purpose
of entering his deliberate protest against the decision of the
Government upon this subject. He maintained that the
house should again pass a measure for the repeal of the
paper duty by such a commanding majority—(laughter)—
as should compel the Peers to pass it also.
Mr. V. SCULLY said that though he admired the speech
of the hon. and learned member for Plymouth as an able
exposition of constitutional law, he could not agree in the
conclusions at which the hon. and learned gentleman had
arrived with regard to the resolutions before the house,
which he thought were all that could to desired at the pia
sent moment. He did not regard those resolutions as final,
but 'imply as an initiatory step in a bolder course. With
respect to the proposed repeal of the duty on paper, it was'
so difficult a quest ion that even he was not able to see his
way through it, and he did not vote at all upon it, and left
the house unable to make up his mind upon it. Should the
house, however, bring the repeal of the paper duty on again,
he should certainly vote for its repeal. (Hear.)
Mr. LE ATHAM disapproved of the course taken by the
Governmertt on this question, and upon other questions.
He wished to know whether the hon. gentleman supposed
that the debate on the Reform Bill was of a nature to raise
this house in the estimation of the public. If hon. gentle-
men read the opinions of the public press, they would find
that this house was held in utter contempt, and that that
was also the opinion of their constituents and the public. A
grave issue had been raised, and efforts were m‘de to effect
a compromise upon it between the Cabinet and the House of
Lords. If the House of Commons gave way, then they
would lose the right to be regarded as faithful representa-
tives of the people. (Hear.) Reference had been made to
precedents; but on this occasion a large remission of taxation
which was proposed by that house was rejected by the other
House of Parliament. By what precedents, he was at a loss
to know, did the House of Lords take the course they had
taken on this occasion ? By what right did they interfere ?
It was proved that the House of Commons had hitherto ever
shown itself ready to defend its own privileges, and he
hoped the house would now be prepared to take its stand
and assert its rights. (Hear, hear.)
Mr. B. OSBORNE said that, with all submission to the
Speaker and to the house in general, he could not help
thinking that on the present occasion the house cut a very
humiliating figure. (Hear, hear.) The noble lord who
moved these-resolutions—and certainly they were not reso-
lutions which were
" Sicklied o'er with the pale cast of thought,"

(cheers)—the noble lord made a speech which,-if it meant
anything at all, was, in the shape of a defence of the House
of Lords, nothing more than an attack upon his own Mini-
stry. (Cheers) The noble lord was followed by his hon.
and learned friend the member for Plymouth, and he must
say that to his mind, and he thought to the mind of the
house generally, the speech of his hon. and learned friend
did credit to him as a lawyer and honour to him as a states-
man. He had expected that some member on the other side,
well fitted for the task, would at least have paid the house,
if not his hon. and learned friend, the compliment to answer
that lucid speech, which had exhausted every argument
upon the question. (Hear.) He lamented to find that, after
all the research which his hon. and learned friend had ex-
hibited, and all the painstaking labour which ho had evi
dently given to the subject, the speech was not followed by
any conclusion. (Hear, hear.) It appeared that his hon.
friend's motion was withdrawn at a meeting of the great
Liberal party. Of whom that great Liberal party consisted
he was at a loss to conjecture. (Opposition cheers.)' But he
thought that, however distasteful it might be to be beaten
upon a division, the hon. gentleman was bound to have
brought his arguments to a direct issue. (Hear, hear.)
The two parts of the question, the financial and constitu-
tional,
But had been very much mixed up together. To the re-
peal of the paper duties he was from
never gave a vote for any measure which he deemed more
rash, reckless,te the
h andid notimproper.d regard
(Opposition
it in that light. (Hear)
anyruse
They repealed the paper duty. It was true that the 53
majority on the second reading had dwindled down to nine
on the third reading, but that was no argument for the
House of Lords. It was sufficient for the House of
Lords that the paper duty was repealed by-
a
majority of the House of Commons, (Hear,
hear.) Then came the constitutingl question, lie

was averse to the repeal of the paper duty. He might think
that, as far as common sense was concerned, the House of

Lords had acted rightly ; but it was strictly unconstitu-
tional. (Hear, hear,) No one had attempted to answer the
hon. and learned member for Plymouth, who had shown
conclusively that all the precedents adduced in another plaes
were just worth nothing at all. (Hear, hear.) He believed;
that this house was living in a fool's paradise. (Cheers.)

They were thinking that the people were paying no attention
to these proceedings, and they talked of their apathy. There
might be something in their apathy at the present moment;
but he believed that apathy might be very nearly allied to
contempt. (Cheers.) Did the course which they had taken,
not on this occasion only, but upon another occasion—did
their shuffling conduct with regard to raorm conduce to
the credit and respectability of constitutional government.
(Hear, hear.) They had the noble lord corning
there and
making, he agreed, a.tvery adroit, a very clever, arid a very
satisfactory speech as far as both sides of the ht. 'use were
concerned. It would be all very well if there wag n.l
public
out of doors watching their proceedings. (Hear, ile"-)
What would the public say ? What were the resolutio.llB ?
The noble lord talked of a dignified course. The resolutie‘ 18
might be dignified, but they were not grammatical. (Cheers
andlaughter.) How could hon. gentlemen opposite, who sat;
there in solemn silence, as if they were attending the funeral
of the British constitution—(cheers)—how could they recon-
cile themselves on the score of dignity with the grammar of
the third resolution? He would not insult the house by read-
ing it. Several hon. members had asked him what it meant.

It was Meant to patch up some discord, and so eager and
willing were the Government to patch up these differences,
that they did not scruple to accept an ungrammatiCal resolu-
tion. (Cheers) But let the house remember that, however
they might throw dust in each others' eyes, they could not
throw dust in the eyes of the constituencies of the country.
(Hear, hear.) He had no intention of mixing
jiknself up in
this debate until he heard the excellent speech of .
the hon.
and learned member for Plymouth, but he should detm: him-
self unwor. hy of holding a place in the House of Comni,ena
if he did not rise as soon as he was able to testify his thank.s
to the hon. gentleman, who at least had shown himself ter
be a worthy British member of Parliament, and given
utterance to truly British sentiments in a way which re-
dounded to his own credit and to the honour of that house.
(Cheers.)
Mr. JAMES said he was not at all surprised that no
member of the Opposition side had taken part in this dis-
cussion, because if he had advocated the same policy as
they did—namely, to support the House of Lords in this—
which, if it were their abstract right, he could not help
believing was a great stretch of their prerogative—he too
would have remained perfectly silent. He agreed with his
hon. friend the member for Liskeard that the resolutions
did not appear to be
" sicklied o'er with the pale cast of thought,"
and he would follow up the quotation as most apposite—
" And enterprises of groat pith and moment
With this regard their currents turn awry
And lose the name of action."
(Cheers.) Beyond all question, a more lame and impotent
conclusion could not have been derived from any resolu-
tions. (Hear, hear.) He ventured to think that as leader
of the house, to whom the honour of the house was confided,
the noble lord was the proper person to have come forward
as the vindicator of these rights and privileges. Mr. Pitt
did so, and on the last occasion, in the case of,Stockdale
and Hansard, the noble lord the member for. .the city
asserted the privileges of the house. But upon other
grounds than as leader of the house and the person en-
trusted with their confidence was the noble lord bound to
vindicate their privileges. The conduct of the House of
Lords had paralyzed the whole or a great portion of the
financial policy of her Majesty's Government. (Hear, hear.)
These resolutions appeared to him to be a poor and paltry
compromise of opinions in the Cabinet, and not dictated by
a regard for the policy of the country. (Hear, hear) He
concurred in the tribute of admiration which had been paid
by the hon. member for Liskeard to the able speech of the
hon. and learned member for Plymouth. (Hear, hear.)
His hon. friend had exhausted the question of privilege,
and he did not propose to trouble the honse with any re-
marks upon it. But, in withdrawing the amendment of
which he had given notice, he wished to state that he did so
in order to throw the whole responsibility on the Govern-
ment, who had assumed it, and who, in the most sorry
manner, proposed to vindicate these privileges. (Hear.)
This was no question of party politics ; it was no question of
policy at all. It was not a question which side of the house
was to occupy the Treasury bench; a more vital question,
compared with which all questions of policy sank into insig-
nificance, was involved in the discussion of that evening.
Our system of taxation had been, as every one acquainted
with the constitutional history of the country knew, the
battlefield of the liberties and privileges of the House of
Commons. The most eloquent speakers and the ablest
writers had struggled and had suffered for that cause; and
when these events became history it would be a degradation
to the Government of the day that they allowed impunity
to that which, being a stretch of prerogative, had become
a usurpation, and- satisfied themselves with a meagre and
paltry resolution. (Hear, hear.)
The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER—Sir, be-
fore you put the question I wish to take the liberty of ad-
dressing a few words to the house with reference in particu-
lar to an expression which has been used, and I must say
not unnaturally used, by the hon. and learned gentleman
who has just sat down. It appears to be the determination
of one moiety of this house that there shall bo no debate
upon the constitutional principles which are involved in
this question ;:and I must say that considering that, gentle-
Men opposite are upon this occasion the partisans of a
gigantic innovation—(cheers)—the most gigantic and the
most dangerous that has been attempted in our times—(re-
newed cheering)—l may compliment them upon the pru-
dence that they show in resolving to be its silent partisans.
(Loud cheers.) I should like to know with what language
and in what tones those who assume the name of Conserva-
tiveyoliticians would argue in support of a great encroach-
ment by one house of the Legislature upon the other.
(Hear.) I agree with the hon. gentleman the member for
Liskeard that there are two questions involved in this mat.:
ter, the repeal of the paper duties—l am glad to see that
there is some tendency to a movement on the other side—
(cheers and laughter) [At this moment Sir J. Pakington,
who, with Mr. Disraeli, had been for some time absent
from the house, entered and took his usual seat upon the
front Opposition bench]—the question of the repeal of the
paper duties, and the constitutional question respecting the
rights of the houses of Parliament. I join, I must confess, in
the just compliments which have been paid to the teMperate
argument made by the hon. and learned member for Ply-
mouth (hear, hear), and I frankly own that it appears to me
that he does not deserve the censure bestowed upon him by
a subsequent speaker for the withdrawal of his amendment,
and that upon grounds which I will venture respectfully to
state. The hon. and learned gentleman who has just sat
down says that there has been a poor and paltry compromise
in the Cabinet. Now, the question comes to be, in the first
place, what is the language, what is thepurport of the reso-
lutions that are before the house P Well, in view of those re-
solutions as they stand, I am bound to say that I:cannot re
fuse to them a cordial support (hear, hear), because they
contain a most mild and temperate declaration, in entire
conformity with the speech of my noble friend who moved
them (some slight cries of " Oh, oh l")—they contain, at
any rate, in themselves a most mild and temperate declara-
tion, but at the same time an intelligible and firm declara-
tion, as far as verbal expression goes, of the rights of the
House of Commons. (Hear, hear.) It has been justly said
that if the rights of the House of Commons are to be vindi-
cated, the question has to be considered whether they are to
be vindicated by words or to be vindicated in action. (Hear,
hear.) So far as vindication in words goes, that proposed by
her Majesty's Government is, I think, a good and a sound
vindication ; but in answer to the challenge of the hon. and
learned member for Marylebone, a challenge which he has
a perfect right to deliver, I do not scruple to say that, in my
opinion, this house would do well to vindicate and establish
its rights by action (loud cheers) ; and, without in the least
degree imputing blame to, or finding fault with, the terms
of the proposal of the Government, I reserve to myself en-
tire freedom to adopt any mode which may have the slightest
hope of success for vindicating by action the rights of this
house. (Renewed cheering.) Ido not think that at this mo-
ment the question of precedent requires to be further
and I think with
argued. In the presence of members of the committee who
sit on the other side of the house, the hon. and learned mem-
ber for Plymouth has, with great conciseness, but at the
about the
same time with great clearness (hear),
conclusive force, gone through the' list of those pretended
precedents (hear), and has shown that there is not one of
ch Lords.t
he r real right them that affords a rag
pri your
eagsehsroefd
toh(feHlicearoovue,rihenseagorff.o)
Pr the
varo
war
don'tmeceen
mare privileges
goes far beyond the essential limit of your
e
s
rYiglutrs P. r Yourvlege
privilege coversi n name 20
aol erf tot proceeding
huis s
thebheou
formalls ooefs. t the
drachs House
discussionsw oh fi
thi anrgesswhriothuded.
re-
gard to whiCh you cannot establish a substantial claim.
You would not until lately allow the House of Lords to in-
terfere with a fee; you would not allow them to interfere
with a local rate; you would not allow to interfere with a
penalty ; and absolutely of those supposed precedents which
have been printed, and
as bearing on this constitutional question—of
properly printed, perhaps, by the
se da
sp rreecgtreadrednst s
tshoemi
re
sruebl as t
at e
nt
coe
nothingthose committee,s
u morei
mteashanitrepros whihbiicthtdhoe
import or export of some article; but because the vio-
lation of the law was attended, perhaps, with a penalty,
perhaps with a forfeiture, they are paraded as questions
affecting the privilege of the House of Commons. I am not
finding fault with the course taken by the House of Com-
mons, which has found it expedient to assert its privilege
largely, in order that it might stand rigidly upon that pre-
cedent whore substantial rights were involved. The House
of Lords has pursued the same course, and I think with
equal wisdom, for these privileges of the House of Commons
are not admitted by the House of Lords. In the year 1610
the House of Lords did make a declaration which undoubt-
edly condoms as strongly as any member of this house could
wish it to condemn the late act of the House of Lords in
rejecting the Paper Duties Bill, because they did then state
that they would not meddle, no, not so much as to advise,
in the matter of supply, which belongs properly and natu-
rally to us. But at the time they made that declaration they
did it because they had, in fact, another form of innovation
in view. On that great occasion, in the first session of the
short Parliament of the spring of 1846, they had an object

r~