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

his duty to support the second reading. He knew that in
doing so he was acting in opposition to the opinion of a noble
lord for whom he entertained sentiments of respect and ad-
miration, and that in taking an opposite view he resembled
Daniel going out to meet the lions, without being certain
of a Divine mission. He did not think it consistent with the
spirit of the constitution for their lordships to make an ex-
treme use of their privileges. (Hear.) He thought the
precedents qaoted and relied upon that evening did not
justify the course which the Opposition proposed to take.
None of the cases referred to were analogous to that under
the immediate consideration of the House. (Hear, hear.)
He would cordially support the second reading. (Hear.)
The Marquis of CLANRICARDE said there could not
be the slightest doubt but that the House of Lords had the
power to reject this bill, but the question was, whether it
was just or proper to do so. They should recollect that an
additional income tax had been imposed on the distinct un-
derstanding that there was, by way of compensation, to be
a remission of the paper duties. Now, he thought that if
their lordships rejected this bill faith would be broken with
the public. If this tax had not been imposed as a check
upon literature, for what purpose had it been imposed P
That object was openly avowed in the restrictions imposed
in the reign of Queen Anne. Why, the paper used in the
printing of the Bible was exempted from this tax, and for
the avowed purpose of giving the Bible larger circulation.
He was able to recollect what was the state of things 30
years ago, when the Government was continually employed
against cheap impure publications ; but so great was the
change which had occurred of late years that cheap publi-
cations, such as Chambers' Journal and others might be
placed in the hands of their lordships' families. The paper
duty, it should be remembered, was an export duty upon
an article of large manufacture, and it was quite erroneous
to say that the repeal of such a duty could possibly affect
the public credit. The annoyance caused by the collection
of this tax was so great that their lordships could not
possibly be aware of its extent without inquiry. (Hear,
hear.) The only effect the throwing out of this bill will
produce would be to create trepidation throughout the
country. It was said that they were in a sate of financial
embarrassment, but the elasticity of the revenue was
always greater under a reduction of taxation than other-
wise. They had the power in that house, no doubt, to reject
this bill as well as other bills, but they would by so doing be
getting up an agitation which would have a very serious
effect upon the country. If they rejected this bill they
would have that agitation which had not yet taken place
in reference to the Reform Bill. Looking to the position of
public affairs, he felt bound to vote against the amendment
of the noble lord.
The Duke of RUTLAND said the noble marquis had ad-
mitted that the finances of the country were in a state of
great embarrassment, and yet he said he would vote for the
remission of taxation to the amount of upwards of one mil-
lion. (Hear, hear.) He (the Duke of Rutland) must say he
was much astonished at the speech of the Chancellor of the
Exchequer, after the speech he had made in 1853, and after
his pledge that in the year 1860 the income tax should be
repealed. He at that time went into details to show to the
House of Commons that the income tax was unjust and
impolitic, and must be repealed. (Hear.) After quoting
from the speech of the Chancellor of the Exchequer in 'i3,
he said the country might well feel astonished that in this
year, 1860, that same gentleman as Chancellor of the Ex-
chequer came forward and proposed—not the repeal of the
income tax, but that a tax which he had described as being
so unjust and obnoxious should be increased, But, why on
earth, if the Chancellor of the Exchequer found ho was not
in a position to repeal the income tax, should he have
proposed the repeal of the paper duty ? (Hear.) The noble
earl (Granville) had alluded to the great prosperity of the
country; and he (the Duke of Rutland) was glad to see that
even under free trade there had been such increased pros-
perity. But he wished to show from returns that for a
series of years recently, while the exports from England
had been at the rate of 127 per cent., from France they had
amounted to 156 per cent. ; while from Belgium they had
amounted to 240 per cent. The promise of Sir Robert
Peel with regard to the speedy extinction of the income
tax ought to be faithfully observed, which it
evidently could not be if the policy of her Ma-
jesty's Government were sanctioned by the house. The
speech of the noble and learned lord near him had disposed
of the question of the right of the house to deal with the
matter, and he should not follow him into that question.
With regard to the expediency of repealing the paper duty,
however, he would say that, even if they had a surplus the
paper duty had not a first claim. The malt tax had superior
claims in many respects, inasmuch as it tended greatly to
increase the price of beer, the drink of the poor man. He
would only add that he thought, looking at the state of the
revenue as shown by the noble lord opposite, that as next
year there would be a deficiency of £11,000,000, he hoped
their lordships would exercise the undoubted privilege they
had of interfering to prevent the consummation of a step so
imprudent and unwise.
Lord CRANWORTH said that he felt this to be a ques-
tion which involved the house in a position of very con-
siderable difficulty. The step which their lordships were
now about to take, if not altogether unconstitutional, was
at least so thinly separated from it, that it merited to be so
described. Their lordships of course had a right to throw
out the bill. No tax could be repealed without an act of
Parliament, and both houses must concur in passing that
act. The noble and learned lord's quotations of 1689,
therefore, did not advance the argument one step. The
Commons objected to any alteration of a money bill in that
house, and for this good reason, that it could not be adopted
without the concurrence of the Commons. But he (Lord
Cranworth) said that from that time to this, no example
of refusing the repeal of a tax under the circumstances in
which they were now called upon to repeal one, was to be
found. The Crown had already communicated to the
country the amount of supply necessary for the service of
the ensuing year, and the money had been voted in cons-
inittee of Ways and Means. All the financial arrange-
ments for the year had been made, and being told distinctly
that there was no occasion for the rejection of the tax, he
said again that there was no example of its repeal being re
fused under such circumstances. The noble lord had
given the case of a coasting trade bill. He had endeavoured
to obtain a sight of that bill, but as the bills were not
printed in those days, he had not succeeded. Probably,
however, the House of Commons had coupled with that
bill something which they ought not to have coupled, so
that it was not actually refusing the bill. That was the
case with respect to the bill of 1811, about molasses, also
referred to by the noble lord. That bill was introduced at
a time when the price of corn was at its height, and the
object of the bill was to reduce the duty on molasSes, in
order that distillation might go on from sugar and not from
corn. The bill came up on the 6th of May, but it was im-
portant to observe that the financial statement of the Go-
vernment was not made before the 20th of May. It was
introduced at that early time in order that the Government
might ascertain beforehand the opinion of the great land-
holders in that house, but it was opposed by the Earl of
Suffolk of the day, who said he was glad the question was
not to be made a party question, but that the bill would be
resisted as an attempt to relieve West Indian interests at
the expense of English ones. The bill was rejected. The
course, taken by the Government, therefore, was open to
objection on totally different grounds, yet their lordships
were now called upon to say, upon such an authority, that
the paper duty, though not required for the service of the
year, ought to be retained. (Hear.) The noble and learned
lord near him also cited somecases in which that house had
thrown out bills sent up from the Commons, but the pre-
cedents would be found to be equally invalid, if their sub-
stance were looked into. He could not conclude without
saying, that if this was to be the first occasion on which
their lordships meant to take a step not sanctioned by one
substantial precedent from the time of the Revolution, they
were adopting a course fraught with the utmost danger to
the high position which they now enjoyed in the estima-
tion of the country, and which they might continue to hold
belong as they abstained from interfering with the privi-
leges of the other house.
Lord CHELMSFORD—I undoubte'ly thought, after
the admirable speech of my noble and learned friend at the
commencement of the evening, that the constitutional part
of this question was entirely settled—(cheers)—and I do not
understand, though I have listened with the greatest atten-
tion to my noble and learned friend (Lord Cranworth),
whether he means to deny the principles upon which the
constitutional proposition has been established, or whether
he merely means to submit to your lordships that because it
would be unprecedented to interfere in the way proposed,
therefore it would be impolitic and inexpedient for you to do
so. My noble and learned friend does not deny the power
of the house to refuse its assent to this bill. We have heard
no denial of that proposition, and none, indeed, can be
offered ; because it stands to reason that if your assent is
required before this bill can become law, it necessarily fol-
lows that you must have the power of withholding your
assent—this, in other words, being the power of rejecting.
(Hear.) We are all agreed as to the privileges of the two
Houses of Parliament with respect to money bills. We are
agreed in reference to bills of supply and taxation that your
lordships have, at all events, the power to reject them. You
have to a certain extent admitted that you have no power to
alter money bills, and a resolution of the Commons to that
effect was passed in 1678. Your lordships, however, have
never absolutely admitted that you have no power to alter
money bills, though you have acquiesced to a certain extent
in that resolution, and have taken care not to exercise that
which may still be the privilege of your lordships' house,
or if you have exercised it the other ho. se has taken care to
assert its own privileges in such a manner as not to violate
the constitutional rights of either House of Parliament.
There are many instances since 1678 in which your lord-
ships have made amendments in money bills. Those bills
have then gone down to the Commons, and supposing the
Commons have not thought those amendments improper,
they have preserved their privileges and asserted their dig-
nity by refusing to assent to the bill, but have introduced
another bill embodying the amendments proposed by the
Lords. In that way the privileges of both Reims of Par-
liament have been maintained. I understocd my noble and
learned friend who has just spoken not to deny tbe prin-
ciples asserted by Lord Lyndhurst, but he says that the
course which the house is called on to pursue is entirely
unprecedented and dangerous, therefore, to be adopted.
My noble and learned friend maintained that the prece-
dents which had been brought before the house are not at
all like the present case; but two cases have been pointed