The Sun.
London, England, 1860-08-11 00:00:00

THE SUN, LONDON, SATURDAY EVENING, AUGUR' 11, 1860.

the Times. Passing all this by, there is a large industry-
-300 or 400 firms—who will, after the 15th of this month,
suffer by the excise duty that is kept on solely by the Lords
under most grievous circumstances; for it is admitted on all
hands that the excise is not and cannot be fairly levied, that
there are exactions which act with great injustice. The
courts have decided certain articles in some cases to be
paper, and in others not paper; and there is grave doubts on
the part of the officers of the Inland Revenue whether
those articles should be charged or not. The Inland
Revenue has condemned this tax ; the House of Commons
has passed a resolution that the excise duty on paper is not
a fit source of permanent revenue; and therefore it has
been condemned in the most emphatic manner. Not only
was this duty condemned by the house, but a bill was
passed through all its stages abolishing the excise on pa.
per; and on the 15th of August that duty would have ter-
minated, but for that which has not happened in this
country for 500 years. But for the interference of the
House of Lords, which has never within the historic period
done such an act this duty would have been abolished. In-
stead of this, the paper makers, after next week, will be
collecting £30,000 a week, or about £1,500,000 a year for the
Exchequer, to which this house has not consented, but has
emphatically condemned by a public bill. They will be
paying those taxes solely on the authority of the other
house of Parliament. (Hear, hear.) We ought to take
into consideration the grievous injustice inflicted on this
important branch of industry ; and it is purely on their ac-
count that I ask the house to consider in the present session,
whether means may not be taken to put an end to a monstrous
injury to a most important and suffering class of the manu-
facturers of this country. Gentlemen on the other side of
the house are supposed by their silence to approve of what
has been done. I appeal to them as representatives of some
portion of the English constituency, and I ask them if they
do not feel in a very different position in regard to their
rights and powers over the taxation of the country to that
which they occupied when the session opened. It is im-
possible to conceal the fact that the House of Commons is
shorn of its power, and that it has permitted itself to be
hustled, so to speak, and deprived of the authority which
for five hundred years our predecessors had exerted with-
out contradiction and without control. The noble lord
told us that if he thought that course of the other house of
Parliament was to be the beginning of a practice, he would
advise this . house to resist it by every constitutional
and legal means in its power. But if the noble lord
were to turn back to a man whose authority he would
respect, Lord Chatham, he would see that Lord Cha-
tham declared that if you admit a principle like this you
may rely upon it that that principle will be constantly
put in practice so soon as it can be supported by power,
(Hear, hear.) That is precisely the dread I have now before
me, that if this be permitted, so hungry is the appetite for
power amongst all bodies of men, that I believe we shall
have this pleaded as a precedent, that we shall have the
principle supported by power, and that unfortunate state of
things which Lord Chatham hoped would never arise will
arise under the government of the noble lord, and by per-
mission of this house. Well, but the noble lord the member
for the City of London, a great authority On these questions,
told us that no question so grave as this had happened in
his lifetime; and he said on ono occasion that he consicleeed
it equal to a total change in our system of goverAment. That
must be a matter of some importance which could draw
from one so cautious and so experienced as the noble lord
words so grave as these. But the Chancellor of the Exchee
quer said this was a gigantic and dangerous innovatien,
The SPEAKER here intimated to the hon. gentleman
that he was quoting words which had been used in a past
debate.
Mr. BRIGHT--I thank you, sir, for the intimation. I
have no other reference to make to them, and I thought I
was not trespassing on the rules of the house in bringing the
evidence of ministers to bear in favour of the conclusion at
which I wish the house and the ministers to arrive. The
question is, what, under the circumstances, have we done ?
We have passed three resolutions, very harmless it may be,
but they were introduced in a speech which was far from
harmless. If in the search which we made in that prece-
dents committee we had found within the last fifty
years three cases like this, I will undertake to say
that the committee would have been forced to admit
that there were precedents of a very overwhelming nature
regarding the power of the Lords on questions of this
kind. 'Well, 50 years or 20 years hence, if the matter re-
mains as it now stands, there may be another committee ;
there may be partisans of the policy of the Lords upon that
committee. They might read the resolutions which the
noble lord proposed, and which the house agreed to. But
they will say what matter these resolutions. The resolu-
tions of this house or of the other house do not make a pre-
cedent, but the thing done—the final conclusion—where
the matter rested—that is the precedent as to the action of
the two houses with regard to matters of this nature, and
therefore they will look upon this as a precedent a hun-
dred times more fatal to the House of Commons than any
of those that were produced by the diligent researches of
the officers of this house. Now, I may be asked what would
I have done in this matter. There are several things which
might have been done. If the noble lord had been a man
of the spirit of Chatham or Mr. Canning, in a matter of
this nature, he would have come down the day after the re-
jection of that bill, and he would have asked the
not because thc, —v'was a great question,
but because the rights of the house were something of
great value, to have suspended the standing orders, and to
permit him to pass a new bill, reaffirming that which had
bad beau rejected. But the noble lord was afraid to do
this. lam told that there were great doubts whether it
could be done. It was said that money was wanted for the
China war, and that we could not ask the house to do this.
But, after all, it is a mere bagatelle in the £70,000,000 you
are voting and spending. The Chancellor of the Exchequer
has told us it is only £700,000 up to the commencement of
the next financial year; and therefore it is perfectly idle to
say that it is worth while, for the sake of these £700,000,
to put in jeopardy the rights of the House of Commons,
and to resign an authority over taxation into the hands of
another house which this house has exerted—and without
question—for a period not less than 500 years. (Hear,
hear.) But there was another course which the noble
lord might take, which it was still open to him to
take, and for which he might find a most conclusive prece-
dent, if he were anxious to do so. In 1734 a case happened
in which the Government wished to save the country gen-
tlemen from the pressure of a heavier land tax, and they
agreed to take 11,200,000 for the service of the year out of
the sinking fund, and to apply it to pu'poses for which it
ioseNntn, art
ugos
conttiheno
detg
htiono originallyutroes cee
receive
icin tended. When they brought that bill
consistedclauses
at ue
es,es thatoo ff o
appropriation.nthl yre twocom clauses.m tt committee
e T s
hhTeohyue
blydoubned moved,unp.
the appropriation clause of the year with those two, and the
two matters together in one bill went up to the House of
Lords, and were passed by that house. Well, there is an
Appropriation Bill to be yet passed by the House of Com-
mons this session,' and I think the House of Commons it-
self, if it has, as Mr. Canning said, a spark of spirit left in
it to maintain its privileges and rights, will avail itself of
that or some other proper mode for the purpose of restoring
itself at the end of the session to the independent position
which it occupied when we met. (Hear.) But there is ano-
ther mode which I would recommend to the noble lord.
He will see that I am merely offering suggestions for his
consideration and for that of his colleagues in the Cabinet.
There is a mode like that which Mr. Canning adopted in
1g27. On that occasion the House of Lords rejected, by a
substantial and great alteration, a bill which altered the
duties leviable on foreign corn. The day after Mr. Canning
came down to the house, and in language of greater severity
than any which has been used in the course of these de-
bates asked the House of Commons to take a course to
maintain their rights. But he said he felt that as Minister
it was his duty to prevent, if possible, a collision between
the two houses; and therefore he asked the house not to
pass exactly the measure which had just been rejected, but
to pass another bill including its provisions, but limited to
a duration of nine months; and I think he prayed that
heaven in the mean time might grant intelligence and good
sense to legislators in another place, so that at the end of
nine months they might agree to that which the Commons
had determined upon. Now that was, in point of fact, very
much like a bill of suspension. I would suggest to the
n )ble lord and his colleagues that they might, if they
thought proper, introduce into the house a bill for the pur-
pose of suspending the collection of the excise duty on
paper up to the month of March or April next, which
would allow time, when parliament met again, for the re-
introduction and passing of a bill abolishing the excise duty
on paper for ever, and I think such a course as that would be
judicious in every way. (Hear.) There is one other course
which might be pursued, and that is the course which was
recommended by the hon. member for Finsbury at the be-
' ginning of these transactions. My hon. friend proposed a
resolution, and although it was not in the form that could
be accepted, yet its intention was that steps should be taken
I presume by an address to thee rown—that parliament should
not be prorogued as usual, but adjourned till November, to
allow the postponed bill to be reconsidered in the House of
Lords ; to allow them to take up the bill and to pass it, as
I believe they would do, and, by so doing, to restore har-
mony between the two houses. Either of those two courses,
that of suspension or that of adjournment, would be pro.
positions of conciliation between the two houses, and not
prepositions which might be said to bear the character that
the House of Commons was interfering to override the
House of Lords. One of these courses Government ought
I think, to take, and I believe the house would support
them. (Hear.) That Government had just the same fears
the other night about that seven-eighths of a penny in the
pound. How many weeks did they hesitate about that, and
no ono could tell why, except that they had 'some doubts
whether they could carry it, and they did not like to run
the risk of a defeat. But they brought it before the house,
and after one night's debate, the argument being trium-
phantly in their favour, the good sense of the house gave
them a majority which was, I believed, three times the ma-
jority which the noble lord believed he possessed when he
first met Parliament. (Hear, hear.) I believe if he had
taken an equally wise and direct course with regard to the
excise duty on paper, the House of Commons, disregarding
the £OOO,OOO or £7, 0,000 of revenue, would have risen to
the height of the case, and would have supported him in
maintaining the privileges of the house. (Hear, hear.) I
wan' to put this question to the house. Is it willing to
sustain itself, or is it willing, to mark itself by concessions
of this dangerous and even of this ignominious character?

The Government is the depositoryof the rights of the house,
and the house is in general very willing to follow. Now,
we are weakened. If hon, gentlemen have read the news-
papers of any foreign country, whether of the United States,
France, Belgium, or wherever there is freedom of discussion
of ane kind, they will find but one opinion expressed with
regard to this matter ; and that is, that the House of Com-
mons made a great mistake during this session—that we have
had a fall—that we have not risen from it ; and that, in point
of fact, rights which belonged to every free country and to
every representative assembly have been needlessly surren-
dered to a power which the House of Commons can always
fairly assert its rights against. As we stand we have not been
faithful to those who sentus here. (Hear.) I never hada more
firm conviction than this, that if the noble lord had occasion
to dissolve the house on this question of privilege there would
have been a response amongst all the constituencies of the
country which would have returned him a majority such
as there has not been in Parliament for many a year to sus-
tain the policy of the noble lord in this matter. I said I
should recommend, as I have recommended, my noble
friend the member for Marylebone not to go to a division
on this matter. I prefer to remain where we are, unless
we can take steps in advance; for I am myself so very ten-
der of this right of the House of Commons, that I know of
no greater calamity that can come upon the country than
that we should impair the confidence which the people
ought to have in us—that we should impair our power over
those questions, which are constantly becoming greater,
affecting the finances and taxation of the country. (Hear.)
There is such a thing as treason known to the law of every
ceuetry. We have it in our law. It is committed against
a monarch, against a State. You may have in it much of
evil or much of good. Treason of one kind may load a man
with shame for over, or may cover him with lasting re
nown. But there is another kind of treason which is
treason against a people. It may be committed by a Minis-
ter of the Crown, by a consenting Cabinet, or by a complai-
sant legislative body. But that is a treason which is all
evil and has no good whatever in it. (Hear, hear.) It covers
no man, erne body of men, with renown, but it covers them
with contempt and infamy—decreed, I belle see, by the just
judgment of posterity. But I hope, I wish, I pray, that when
the impartial pen of history shall tell the story of the doings
of this session of the British Parliament, it may not have
to say that the Prime Minister and his colleagues, with
the Rouse of Commons supporting them, let down the
powers of the House of Commons, and sacrificed
and betrayed—as lam afraid we are in danger of
sacrificing and betraying—those most solemn and im-
portant rights wliiels we are bound to maintain, I will
undertake to say, by sanctions stronger than those which
oaths can give—by all that our forefathers have done, and
by all that those who come after us have a right to ex-
pect at our hands. (Hear.) Ido not ask the noble lord to
say now what he will do. Ido not wish to force him to an
immediate answor—to rise in his place, and say this is im-
possiWe—it cannot be done. The noble lord is not infallible
any more than the rest of us. But he might, I think, do
much to bind together all those who have, for the most
part, cordially supported his Government during the ses-
sion; he might do that which, I think, would be agreeable
to the great party who have sent 'seta this house, and which
I believe would even have the support of many hon. gentle-
men opposite. I believe that Parliament would then uni-
tedly rejoice that we could separate, having at least the same
power in our hands—undisputed, unimpaired, and uncon-
trolled—that we had at the beginning of the session.
Lord PALMERSTON—I had hoped that this house had
sufficiently discussed, at all events for the present session,
if it had not finally disposed of, that question which had
threatened to bring about a serious collision between the
two Houses of Parliament. It is allowable, no doubt, for
those who, like the hon. gentleman, entertain very strong
and extreme opinions upon this matter, to take advantage
of all fair and proper opportunities for impressing those
opinions on the house, and urging that they should be car-
ried into some practical execution. But I must say that if
the hon. gentleman does entertain the strong epinions which
he expressed to-night as to the consequences to the cha-
racter of the house and to the constitution of the country
that would follow from nothing more being done than that
which this house by a majority of 400 agreed to do, I think
it would be becoming in him to produce his opinions, and
to propose his course of conduct at the time when the sub-
ject was under the consideration of the house—when the
house was full, when the event was recent and fresh in the
minds of members, and when therefore the house would be
more ready to determine, and the country more ready to
accept, a solution than they can be at the present time.
(Hear, hear.) I think I have performed my duty to this
house and to the country by recommending the course
which I conceived it proper to pursue, and that opinion was
confirmed by the immense majority whereby these resolu-
tions were sanctioned. I trust that if I thought that mea-
sures such as the hon. gentleman has adverted to as being
adopted by Ministers of former days were appropriate to the
occasion, necessary and proper, I should not have required
the stimulus of his advice to point out to me the course
which, as the responsible Minister of the Crown, I should
have deemed it proper to recommend the house to pursue.
(Hear, hear.) Ido not think the occasion required more
than what I proposed, and what the house adopted. (Hear.)
I think we did sufficient to maintain the dignity and assert
the prlvilebrn of thin House of Parliament, But I think if
there is one thing more ..indis..ified than another—if tne.a
is one thingraore humiliating than another, either in an in-
dividual or in an assembly, it is the indulging in puling
lamentations and fruitless complaints, knowing at the time
of making these complaints and lamentations that no prac-
tical result can follow except that of declaring to the whole
world that, in the opinion of the 'speaker, an injury has
been sustained for which none of the proposals which he
makes by way of remedy can at the present moment be
adopted. I think the hon. gentleman would have better
consulted his own character and the dignity of Parliament,
as well as paid more regard to the constitution of the coun-
try, if he had been content—not choosing to make his pro-
posals at the time when the matter was under consideration
---to let it rest on the basis the majority of the house had
placed it to the satisfaction, I will venture to affirm, of the
great bulk of the nation. (Hear, hoar.) The hon. gentle-
man says that if we dissolved Parliament and appealed to
the country on this question we should have had a great
majority. lam entirely of a different opinion. lam per-
suaded that the country would not have supported a Minis-
try who deemed that this was a question on which, under
the circumstances of the case, we ought to take issue.
(Hear.) I am not prepared for any of the courses which the
hon. 'gentleman proposes. He has been pleased, towards the
conclusion of his speech, to tell us what constitutes treason.
There arc those who think that men who would wish to
overthrow every component part of the constitution of the
ceuntryimight bring their minds to conceive plans which, if
they were can:ed into execution, might come under that
denomination. (Hear.) But all I will undertake to say is
this, that when he says that a particular course which Go-
vernment may take is one which may be treason to the
people, and that the adoption of such a course would cover
the minister who adopted it with contempt and infamy, I
rest with confidence the question between the hon. gentle-
man and myself on this point on the deliberate judgment of
the present and all future ages ; and I am not at all afraid
which view will be deemed to be deserving of the epithets
which he has been pleased to bestow upon me. (Cheers.)
EPPING AND HAINAULT FORESTS.
Mr. BUXTON wished tousle the First Commissioner of
Works whether he intended to proceed with the inclosure
of those portions of Hainault and Epping Forests which had
hitherto been the constant resort of the inhabitants of the
east end of London ?
Lard H. LENNOX asked for a copy of any correspon-
dence between the Government and the University of Lon-
don and the Royal Society respecting the terms upon which
Burlington-house is held by them.
Mr. COWPER must tell the noble lord that the case was
urgent. The National Gallery had not at present accommo-
dation for pictures which required to be Isung, and as to any
pictures which might be hereafter granted to the National
Gallery there would be no room to receive them. He was
sorry on these grounds that he could not accede to the pro-
positions made by the noble lord.
Mr. 11. BAILLIE thought that, although the vote might
be an urgent matter, lie did not think it was necessary for
the Royal Academy to remain where it now was, and that
additional space would be obtained by their removal.
AFFAIRS OF SYRIA.
Mr. 11. B. SHERIDAN asked the Secretary of State for
Foreign Affairs whether, with reference to the interference
of the great powers in Syria, it was the intention of her
Majesty's government to limit the aid rendered by England
to the appearance of a naval squadron off the coast ? And
whether or not, in the event of the horrible massacres being
continued, and the troubles in Syria extending to fresh
places, it was the intention of her Majesty's government to
send aid in troops, or to permit France to obtain all the
honour and credit which must result from an active mil'

:ary support of the Christians against the terrible proceed.
legs of the Mahonnetans ?
Lord J. RUSSELL—With regard to the question put
to me by my hon. friend who has just asked whether we
have limited our operations to a mere appearance of a naval
force on the coast of Syria, I have to reply that we have not
so limited our interference, but that our naval squadron
will do all in their power to prevent the massacres, and if
they are not otherwise able to do so, the admiral is in-
structed to land the marines in order to prevent a recurrence
of those scenes which have lately been enacted. It has been
communicated to me by the Turkish Ambassador that
there are accounts from Fuad Paella that 400 persons had
been arrested for taking part in the recent massacres, that
extraordinary tribunals had been established, and several
of those persons had been already condemned, and if they
were found guilty of having taken any part in the mas-
sacres they would be immediately executed. Fuad Pacha
also states that all the well disposed people at Damascus
assisted the Government in arresting all those persons who
had taken part in the outrages, and that the troops of the
Sultan had behaved with the utmost loyalty. (Hear,
hear.) No doubt, when the representatives of the vari-
ous Powers met at Paris, it was their opinion and that
of their Governments that there was considerable reason to
fear, from the misconduct of the Turkish troops and those
who commanded them, that the cause of order would find a
faint and uncertain support from those troops; and there-
fore it was thought necessary that a body of French troops
should be sent to support the authority of the Sultan; but
it was thought far better in the first instance that one power
should take charge of the movement of the troops, and if it