The Sun.
London, England, 1860-06-30 00:00:00

•
N SVS PAPER
,-7- I
-•
, • .
r
. I
titr*.
q 3
mencPri. We are by no means coin la _ art • Att.,. 3
Imo_',;4
,;
4.t
• • 4
.6.
.
, , -
eg ce, for we think the 3 lILIVO • r 4•,11
right
▪ o,rei her a eomplet
"47
- I•
• '44
11. T"" *4.1 .O
_
1,,
‘l4 A
a
4,
,
I
.
41111°P.*
• cedents—, ing i▪
nto
. • - - 'may dti
- s-7)° ' I-6
•AL
1.
1 ' z

informing the mind of the reader -upL
lateral points ; but, as this long report
to be tborpitghly read, we are doing our readers a
service in dirceting attention at once to the only
part which is of direct relevancy. It appears, then, ,
that in 1714 the Lords rejected a bill for relieving
merchants from part of the duties due on tobacco
and wine; and that in the next year the same bill
was sent up again, and was again rejected.. In
1767 a bill to allow free importation of—that is, to
suspend or repeal the duties upon—salted meat and
butter was postponed to a day after the prorogation.
In 1781 a bill for reducing the 'duties on salt for
manure was in like manner defeated by postpone-
ment. There are several other precedents which
go to a similar extent. The most important, how-
ever, is the rejection by postponement of a Supply
Act founded upon a resolution off' the ,whole house
repealing the existing coal dutiesiL. and granting
other duties in lieu thereof. The loss of this bill .
occurred in 1808. This is all that can' be dug up.
It is not much, but so far as it goes it proves that
the usage has been uniform,
.that the Lords have
never been allowed to originate, and never allowed. .
to amend a bill imposing or repealing a tax ; but
that whenever they have chosen to reject such a bill
the Commons have submitted to the rejection, ,
Satisfied with, in one instance, fixing upon the
Lords " the ill consequences that attend the non-
passing of the bill."
The committee produce these precedents, but
offer no recommendation upon them. We do not see
how they could have done otherwise, now that the
nature of these precedents is apparent. There is
nothing in them upon which a recommendation of
any course of action by the House of Commons eould
be founded. They. have discovered cases wherein,
the Lords have rejected bills which went to repeal
duties ; although, perhaps, none of these cases
seem in distinctness to come quite up to the case
which has now occurred; but they have'found no
precedent of any action taken- by -the -House of
Commons upon any one of these rejections. The
precedents such as they are, are all in favour of
doing nothing. If the Commons wore to again send
up the bill, there is a precedent :for the Lords a
second time rejecting the bill. If; - as--Mr. Collier
proposes, the Commons should make a protest
against the Lords not having passed the bill they
sent up, the Lords might very reasonably reply
that the encroachment was all on the part of the
Commons, who had made a claim not only justified
by no precedent, but contrary to all precedent. It
is plain that the committee, as a Committee of Pre-

PRICE 4D. STAMPED, 5D

i I that character the duty devolved upon them of op-
! posing all political innovations, more especially all
innovations calculated to overthrow proprietorial
rights. He believed they were perfectly justified
. in their rejection of a bill which had been recently
sent up to them from the House of Commons .; and
he was sure that the people generally would sup-
port them in the course which they had taken upon
that occasion. (Cheers.)
Lord BRAYBROOKE acknowledged the compli-
ment. The House of Lords were not, he said, pre-
pared to be the mere registers of the decisions of
the House of Commons, although they would not
resist the delib3rate and ,unequivocal will of the
people of England. (Cheers.)
Mr. MEREWETHER, Q.C., in proposing " The
House of Commons," said he believed that a more
than ordinary success had attended the efforts of
the Conservative party in that house during the
present session. Although they had not been able
to save the country from an importation of the
thinnest of French wines, they had, by the large
minority they had brought to the maintenance of
church rates, saved the Church from the " Cornish
hug" contemplated by Sir John Trelawny, and they
had compelled a reputed Whig Ministry to come
forward in the white sheet of reform. They had
at the same time made the prime agitator of the
day feel the truth of the words—" All that's bright
must fade"—(a laugh)—and they had enabled
people to say of that gentleman, coupling his fate
with that of his newspaper—

" None has fallen so far
Since him miscalled the Morning Star."
(Laughter.) These were great triumphs for the
Conservative party; and they would no doubt be
able to increase theni if they would give not a
blind, but a faithful, adherence, to that leader who,
having twice changed defeat into success, was en-
titled to the earnest, continuous, and not quarterly
gratitude of his followers. (A laugh.) In conclu-
sion, he had to state that he wished to couple with
that toast the name of the Right Hon. James
Whiteside. (Cheers.)
Mr. WiIITEsIDE, who rose amidst loud and pro-
longed cheers, to respond to the toast, said that the
British House of Commons was unquestionably the
only great and free popular assembly in Europe,
and the country which that assembly re-
presented enjoyed, he believed, a larger amount
of true liberty than any other nation in the
world. The example of America was held
up by certain parties for our imitation ;
but the misery and guilt of slavery attached
to the whole political and social condition of that
country ; while e'ccry person who touched the soil
of England was a free man, no matter what com-
plexion his face might have acquired under the
burning heat of a tropical sun. (Hear, hear.)
Looking at the beneficent fruits of the British
monarchy, from his heart he could repeat the excla-
mation—esto perpetua. He meant not a monarchy
surrounded by republican devices, but the ancient
and famous monarchy of England. May it (con-
tinued the right hon. and learned gentleman)
flourish in ages to come as it has done in ages past,
in splendour, and power, and glory. May the
Peers grow daily in the people's love by their pub-
lic services ; may the members of the House of Com-
mons, using with moderation and forbearance the
prodigious power which they possess, while they
exhibit to the world a spectacle of grandeur, and
dignity, and freedom, prove themselves to their
countrymen to be wise, faithful, and fearless guar-
dians of the precious trust committed to their
charge. (Loud cheers.)
Viscount INGESTRE proposed—" The Provincial
Conservative Societies."

cedents, had not the materials for advising any
course of action. They are rather in the position
of Be,laam. They were sent out to find curses,
and nothing but blessings will come up. This re-
port only proves that, so far as the law of Parlia-
ment appears in the action of the two houses, the
Lords really have within them the unconstitutional
discretion which they have just exercised.

(Row tlte Daily :Yea:6.)

The Privilege Committee has at length termi-

nated its labours, and agreed to a Report which
leaves the controversy between] the two Houses
precisely where it was when the Committee was
appointed some weeks ago. Divided amongst them-
selves by party predilections and personal tenden-
cies they have been only able to agree in shirking
the duty imposed upon them of declaring what is
the law of Parliament in the great and vital matter
of taxation. The Tories could of course desire no-
thing better, for they want nothing done ; and
hence their ready acquiescende in the amendment
of Mr. Walpole's draft Report by the elimination of
every phrase that could possibly be made a pivot of
controversy. What the Liberal members of
the Committee will have to say for them-
selves in accounting for their failure and defeat we
shall hear in due time. For the present, however,
our business is not with individuals or even with
parties so much as with the House of Commons
itself, and the grave responsibility imposed on it by
the conduct of the House of Lords, from the burden
of which it has in no respect been relieved by the
colourless and runaway report of the committee.
As to an armoury of rusty weapons, disputants
may resort to that antiquarian collection of by-gone
resolutions, bills, and acts ; but Parliament can
gather from it no warning as to the peril of per-
mitting a new precedent to be set for aristocratic
encroachment, no counsel as to the mode in which
like attempts may be guarded against in future.
No ; the House of Commons must defend its
inherent prerogative of taxation entire and inde-
feasible by its own unaided wisdom and courage.
The established practice for two centuries, based •
on broad and definite principles—principles
thoroughly understood and universally recognised
by the community at large—cannot depend for its
preservation on the texture or number of verbal

Sir E. LECIIMERE replied to this toast.
The business of the evening was then brought to
a close ; and the company began to disperse shortly
after midnight.

THE PAPER DUTIES BILL.

(From the Times.)

The British Constitution is built up of prece-
dents. This is its great beauty in the eyes of
writers upon government. This is, in the opinion
of philosophical inquirers, the secret of its stability.
In other countries when a hitch occurs in the work-
ing of the State the whole machine is thrown out
of gear, citizens turn out into the streets, barri-
cades spring up, blood runs rife in the kennels,
and a revolution is consummated. In England, when
a difficulty happens, grave men meet and search,
not for arms but for precedents. It has been so
' with us from all times. You will find this cus-
tom even in the old chronicles ; you will see it
active in the reign of Richard 11. When we
last changed our ruling dynasty the debates were
all of the driest and most technical character.
All our history is a cautious onward course from
one steppingstone to another, and all those step-
pingstones are precedents. Passions vary with the
time, violence passes away, and leaves nothing
behind it but a tendency to reaction ; but when
we calmly and patiently dig where we suspect
some old constitutional landmark to lie buried,
and find it and raise it up and renovate it, it re-
mains as a boundary stone respectable from its age
and safe in the common recognition of the nation.
They say this habit has been the salvation of our
liberties. Whether this be so or not, it is our habit,
and we are not now departing from it. When the
Lords intimated their intention to reject the Paper
Duties Repeal Bill, people generally were a little
startled. We had all a general knowledge that
the granting of taxes is entirely the province of
the Commons, and the impression was strong that
between imposing a tax and preventing the re-
moval of a tax the distinction is little more than
technical. As to the special matter in question, the
public thought that the Lords, if they had the dis-
cretion, had exercised it favourably to the interests
of the country; and the event has abundantly
proved that the public was right in that opinion;
but the constitutional jealousy remained. Any
danger to the balance of the Constitution, any con-
fusion in the sphere of action of the Three Estates,
is of infinitely greater importance than a mere
financial arrangement, At the instance, there-
fore, of the Government, whose measure has been
rejected, the House of Commons at once deputed
to a Committee the task of searching for pre-
cedents. They were instructed to look back
and ascertain whether in this act the Lords
had done anything which they had not been accus•
tomed to do upon previous similar occasions.
This committee has now made its report, and all
the archives of Parliament, so far as they bear upon
the question upon which we desire information, lie
open before us. As a history of the constitutional
practice of granting supplies, and of the rules which
regulate the action of the two Chambers in dealing
with these questions, it is a very valuable docu-
ment ; but we think the public will be disappointed
at the very small amount of authority which the
industry of the committee, aided by the facilities for
reference possessed by the officers of the house, has
been able to bring together on the question imme-
diately in hand. Commencing their search with
the year 1628, which is the year in which the pre-
sent form of granting supplies was practically esta-
blished, and the preamble now in use was settled
under the eye of those great lawyers Coke, Glan-
ville, and Selden, the committee proceed to adduce
instances wherein it was distinctly laid down that.
the office of Commons is to grant, and that of the
Lords is to assent. They quote the declaration of
the Lords at a conference held in 1640, that " My
lords would not meddle with matters of subsidy,
which belong naturally and properly to you—no,
not to give you advice therein ; and they show
etthe establishment of the practice of returning the
supply act to the House of Commons in order

~;~ .. ~,

precedents that may be cited in a speech or a report.
It is not a thing to be played for dexterously
in debate, and won or lost by a turn of the
rhetorical game. For generations the people of
England have submitted to no other taxing,
power on earth but that of their representa-
tives sitting in Parliament. It is one of the
chief of their liberties, and to their legally ap-
pointed guardians they look to defend it for them.
If their representatives surrender this eldest born
of their rights they will assuredly be held account-
able, collectively and individually, for their neglect.
It is no question of mere punctilio between the two
Houses ; it is emphatically and undeniably the all-
important question as between the nation at large
and an irresponsible chamber of nobles, whether
national taxation shall or shall not be subject to
the arbitrary will of the latter, or whether it shall
continue to be, as time out of mind it has been in
England, created, limited, and revoked by the vote
of the Commons, and of the Commons alone. It
signifies nothing, now, whether the Paper Duty
be a good or bad tax; it signifies -nothing
whether- the Exchequer could afford to do
without it this year or no. The House,
of Commons debated both questions and de-
cided them; and as well might the Queen, by
resort to an obsolete prerogative, have sought to set
aside that decision, as the House of Lords to consti-
tute itself into a financial court of appeal unknown
to the usage and custom of the constitution.

If the House of Commons consisted only of the
representatives of trades and professions, while it
claimed the right to tax alike incomes derived from
industry and from land, the House of Land-
Lords might fairly claim a legislative veto on
taxing bills; for they might with justice argue
that an undue share of the general burdens might
otherwise be laid on them. But confessedly there
is not a colourable pretence for any such demand
in the existing condition of things. More than
two-fifths of the House of Commons are members
for counties ; and Lord Derby himself, not very
long ago, declared that if he were told the acreage
of the family estates in any given shire, he could
with certainty designate the particular shade of the
landed interest that commanded its representation.
Beside the county members there are at least 100
relatives or connexions of peers who sit for small
boroughs, and the result is, as everybody knows,
that far more than half the members of the Lower

House are identified by blood, marriage, rank, and
property with the hereditary aristocracy. And this
is wholly irrespective of party distinction or pre-
ponderance. The Whigs are, and have ever been, as
anxious as their hereditary rivals to thrust the cadets
of their great houses into the representation of coun-
ties and towns. It is not a matter of party or of
opinion ; it is one of-social' instinct, and of class.
Instead of too little, the landed interest have too
much power in the House of Commons ; yet
the people have never yet raised the invidious
question, or sought to have that preponderance
limited. When they recently asked for Reform
in the Representation, they did not deny the
right of the Peers to oonsult and vote on I,lle
details of the change proposed. And why ?a Be
cause they felt that the House of Commons,
taxing power of the State, ought to be so ceoslnlstias-
tuted as to represent landed property.
commercial, manufacturing, and pr-ofestsiogin,sa.r gains
and because they had no desire ogive
lust
cause of jealousy to the great interest
. with. Which
the Peers are supposed to be specially identified.
But if the House of Lords, sitting apart, acting
irresponsibly, and consisting
of
exclusively
nation,usively of
are one
small e small section of a single class
have the power to overhaul the Budget, and to vote
the imposition or forbid the repeal of what taxes
they please, then in all conscience their sons- and
brothers and nominees ought to be excluded from
the House of Commons. They cannot in common
fairness or decency pretend that they have a right
first to vote with other orders of the community
through :the medium of their representatives in
the Lower House, and then that they have a right
afterwards to vote separately and exclusively in
\tvhiti,UPPor House. No question more pregnant
consequences has ever been raised in our
constitutional history. Who will lead the Com-
mons on this, great occasion ? We know who ought
and who are expected to do so—the Liberal
Ministers of the Crown; and great and deep would
be our regret for the sake of those Ministers if they-
hesitated or wavered in the performance of so mani-
fest a duty.

having been assented to by the Lords,
it may be presented for the Royal assent by the
Speaker. All this is plain sailing. So, also, is the
practice of the Commons when the Lords amend
a Supply or Tax Bill. The instances in which the
Commons have refused to entertain such amend-
ments will not greatly further us in our inquiries
as to the exact limits of the constitutional province
of Lords and Commons in the case before us. The
only precedent under this heading cited by the
committee which bears at all upon the present in-
quiry is a warning given by the Commons to the
Lords in 1678. " The Commons, therefore, leav
the bills and the amendments with your lordships,
together with the ill consequences that attend the
not passing this bill." We have not got half-way
through this report without finding anything to our
immediate purpose. The heading "Practice of the
Commons, when the Lords do not pass the bill,"
seems to promise something of more interest.
The results, however, is still disappointment. Out
of five precedents three are rather cases of amend-
ing than of rejecting, and all we learn is that in 1708
thee Lords rejected a Supply Bill to lay a duty upon
foreign woollens, and that in 1752 a bill to fix a
license tax upon brokers was lost upon a proroga.
tion.
None of these precedents touch the present point,
which is the rejection of a bill for repealing a tax.
It is not until we arrive at the last, and almost the
shortest heading in the report, that we find gathered
in a bunch all the precedents which are of the least
value for the object for which the search was Qom-

Premature Greyness, Weak or Falling Hair, Neuralgia
Nervous Headache, Rheumatism, Stiff Joints, &a, are reme-
died with ease and certainty by HEnnixo's Patent 3fagnetic
Brushes and Combs. Their use is an absolute lultarY• Ills
newly-invented Teazle Brushes for Colth, Velvet, &c., are
admirable—they not only cleanse, but preserve the fabric in
a remarkable manner. The masursotogir-amterielts32, Basinghall-
,7AD7
re
street. Thepublio are cautioned W g
IWI! ,