The Sun.
London, England, 1860-05-26 00:00:00

of that great party in the country which is represented on
this side of the house. With regard to the amendment of my
hon. friend the member for Finsbury, I can assure the house
that I had never seen it until I entered the house, and I
confess that it is one that has never for one moment

suggested itself to me in the remotest degree ; but it
seems to me that it is dictated by a clear and visible

regard for the constitution of this country and for the
honour and just functions of both houses of Parliament.
(Hear, hear.) It was received with something like merri-
ment, but the more the house considers it, the more I am
satisfied they will feel that it is a motion by which the
supremacy of this house with regard to matters of finance
can be
.maintained, whilst the dignity of the House of
Lords, which I am one of the last who would seek to im-
pair, can be upheld. (Cries of " Oh, oh" from the oppo-
sition.) Do not let hon. gentlemen for a moment fancy that
I wish any governing power in this country to be degraded.

.f I were an avowed republican—if I thought that in this

country the monarch and the aristocracy were of no good—
still, so long as a monarchy and an hereditary chamber ex-
isted, I would say, "By all means maintain their dignity,

and support them as far as you can in the free and honest
estimation of the people." At the same time I would ad-
vise them, as I have advised them before—sometimes as
they have thought in an unfriendly tone—so to rule and

exercise their power that their power may be perpetual.
My hon. friend the member for Finsbury does not ask the
house to take any active steps in this matter. He des not
ask us to throw out any challenge to the House of Lords.
Ho does not ask us to express any resentment against what
their lordships have done, nor does he ask the noble lord to
vary from the statement which he made the other night,
that he did not seek to bring the two houses into collision.

My hon. friend's motion is of a different character, and I
think it can be shown it is one which, if the house had a
little time to weigh the question, would meet with a favour-
able consideration. Indeed I am not at all certain that if
the matter were left over until the house meets next Thurs-
day, the noble lord and his colleagues might not have ar-
rived at the conclusion that it is the mode of getting out of
the difficulty in which we find ourselves placed most cense.
nant'with the dignity of the house and the just rights of the
people we represent. What my hon. friend proposes is
time and reconsiderati n, which we all know in private
affairs are the great mediators in our difficulties, should act
as mediators between the House of Lords and this house.
I cannot tell the house, because I am not profound upon
the subject, but I suspect that there are precedents for
the course which my hon. friend has proposed. I know
there are precedents for a course which is not
a greater deviation from our ordinary rules than this. There
are cases where the House of Lords have rejected a bill
which this house intended should pass when Parliament
has been prorogued for a week or a fortnight and assembled
again to enable the Government of the day to re-introduce
the bill, and send it up to the House of Lords for their ac-
ceptance. My hon. friend does not propose, however, that
Parliament should be prorogued, but simply that when the
business of the country is fairly disposed of the house should
adjourn for three months, if necessary, in order to meet
again in November, when it would be seen whether the
House of Lords after reconsidering the question would ac-
cept the bill. I should like to make one suggestion to the
noble lord, namely, that he should not force the house to a
division to-night upon his motion for the appointment of a
committee I think it would be advantageous to all parties
if the debate were adjourned until Thursday next, in order
that all parties concerned might have a greater opportunity
of coming to a more decided opinion upon the matter. I
am convinced that the result of the discussion after such an
adjournment would be hailed with much more satisfaction
by the country, and, with the permission of the house, I
would move that the debate be adjourned until Thursday
next. (Hear, hear.)
Lord J. RUSSELL—Sir, it is not because I underrate
the importance of the question now before the house that I
ask the house to assent to the motion of my noble friend,
and not to agree to either of the amendments which have
been proposed. It certainly appears ome that there has
not been within my memory a question of greater import-
ance. (Hear, hear.) It is a question which undoubtedly
affects the most essential rights and privileges of the House
of Commons; but for that reason, and especially bearing
in mind the observation N't hich the honourable member for
Birmingham made that there is no reason to sup-
pose that any portion or section of the members
of this house are either indiferent or lukewarm to the
maintenance of its most sacred privileges, I would endea-
vour in our present proceedings to do that which would
most enlighten the house without prematurely coming to
anything in the nature of a decision. Now, that is the cha-
racter of the proposal of my noble friend. Myhon. friend
the member for Birmingham says that the motion cught to
have been of a different kind—namely, that it should have
been a proposal pointing out the difference of various kinds
of tax-bills, and founding on that difference a reference to
a committee. Now I will own to my hon. friend that when I
first considered this question I was disposed to take that
view of it. There isundoubtedly a clear distinction between
bills of a taxing character. There is one set of bills for the
purpose of imposing taxes or of relieving the people from
taxes and providing the supplies necessary for the charges
of the year, and there is another kind of bills in whichtaxa-
tion is merely incidental, as for instance if there were a very
high duty placed on foreign corn of such a nature as to
amount to a prohibition, it would be obvious that a duty of
that kind would not be for the purpose of revenue, but for
the purpose of protection. It would not however be advis-
able in my view that we should make that distinction in
our order of reference, because it might be supposed that
such a distinction would not leave the committee perfectly
free, but would point out the conclusion to which the com-
mittee ought to arrive. Therefore it seems to me that the
best course we can take is that which, after much delibera-
tion, my noble friend has adopted, namely, that the various
descriptions of bills should be mentioned and the committee
be left at liberty to ascertain what the precedents are in re-
ference to legislation upon them. Those precedents no
doubt will be found to be of various kinds, and it will be the
business of the committee to ascertain whether the House
of Lords in this instance have gone beyond or have varied
from former precedents, and, if so, in what respect they
have done so. There are certain questions upon which the
House of Lords are jealous, and not unnaturally jealous, of
their privileges. There are questions of taxation, where
this house has mixed up in a taxing bill other questions
not properly belonging to it. For instance there
have been bills in which this house has endea-
voured to fix upon points of legislation and to prescribe how
they are to be settled under the name of imposing or re-
lieving taxation. In those cases the House of Lords have,
I think, rightly interfered in order to prevent an encroach-
ment which would have carried our privileges'beyond the
mark we have ourselves assigned to them. There is an in-
stance in which that kind of objection prevailed, and I men-
tion it as an example, because it happens to have been upon
an occasion not totally dissimilar from the events of the
present year. I refer to the bill passed by Mr. Pitt in this
house under the commercial treaty of 1787. It was objected
in the House of Lords that in that bill three separate sub-
jects wore introduced—namely, that the commercial treaty
with France was sanctioned, that new duties were imposed
beyond the subject of the commercial treaty, and that, be-
sides all this, there was a great consolidation of duties,
making a new species of legislation with regard to customs
It was objected that these three subjects ought not to have.
been contained in one bill ; but that objection was over-
ruled. I have mentioned it only as an instance in which
the jealousy of the House of Lords was properly expressed
with regard to bills which went beyond the province of im-
posing or remitting taxation. Now, I think it would be
wise for this house to furnish itself with every kind of in-
formation, to enlighten itself in reference to these historical
precedents. There can be no harm in so doing, for our
powers are very great. lam not one of those who think
that the powers and privileges of the House of Commons
are about to succumb to the great authority of the House of
Lords. I believe that our privileges will be maintained, and
I believe that by taking time to consider the subject, and by
taking care that we walk in the paths of the constitution,
we shall at last arrive at a right decision upon the question.
(Hear, hear.) My hon. friend the member for Finsbury (Mr.
Duncombe) has moved an amendment upon my noble frond's
motion,which seems to me certainly to go not onlybeyond the
occasion, bnt far beyond it. The fault that many of us find
with the decision of the House of Lords is that it trenches
upon our privileges, but my hon. friend's amendment
trenches upon the prerogative of the Crown. (Hear.) I
will not argue the question whether the course he proposes
be right or wrong. It may be right that her Majesty
should not proregue Parliament, nor that a long adjourn-
ment should take place, but it would neither be constitu-
tional nor respectful for the house to declare by resolution
that her Majesty's prerogative of prorogation should not be
exercised. (Hear, hear.) Without an adjournment for a
week, without altering the terms of the motion which com-
prehended everything, I think this house might fairly and
properly now proceed to agree to my noble friend's motion,
and when the report of the committee is presented hon.
gentlemen of all parties, duly considering the privileges of
this house, may come to a conclusion more consonant to
those which have been arrived at in former times, and more
bearing the symptoms and fruits of deliberation than any
conclusion we can arrive at at the present moment. (Cheers.)
Mr. CLAY said the real question was whether the House
of Lords had or had not trenched upon the prerogative of
the Commons. For his own part he was prepared to •trust
himself in the hands of the noble lord the member fur the
City of London, and was willing to wait before taking any
further step until the nature of former precedents had been
ascertained.
Mr. H. BAILLIE supported the motion of the noble lord
at the head of the Government, regarding the amendment
as a virtual postponement of the whole question.
After a few words from Mr. WHALLEY,
Mr. BRIGHT said he just wished to explain the object
he had in moving his amendment—it was to give the noble
lord an opportunity of reconsidering the proposition before
the house. But bearing in mind what had been said by the
noble lord the Secretary for Foreign Affairs,: the tone of the
house in regard to his observations, and the altered state of
his own feelings in regard to the question, perhaps the house
would allow him to withdraw his amendment, and probably
the hon. gentleman the member for Finsbury would also
think it right to withdraw his amendment.
Mr. P. O'BRIEN desired to know when the question
would be brought before the house again ?
Mr, T, DUNCOMBE said he thought that under all the

~• JJ :V