The Sun.
London, England, 1860-05-16 00:00:00

~~

86-k
our • 31 ' tt
AA,
4,, 4
2114 4311' " 4 1-#443
17) 'll6l 1/4/
•
14./0,,.41.5,,,,
Ron:. ctve 71.

e

//, 0

~~~ ~

Alio, • 4D. STAMPED, SD.

was their :duty to do, a,. 4 home. If liberty were ex-
tinguished in England, how much would liberty
t,he whole wide world !
,ei liberty of England
have to mourn throughout the
But what would become of to 'e
House of
if any irresponsible, unelected, A
.without check, to
Parliament was to re permitted,
rifle the pockets and tills of the intla 'strious ula-
. pop
tions of this country ? (Cheers.)R each branch
of the Legislature, with due moderaticete with due
nent
regard to the rights and interests of the 0), her, per-
formed its just functions, then real and per.u.s a
freedom would be secured to. England, =el it
would be said for generations to come that 11-e'
of all countries of the world, have been longee).
without turbulent and violent revolutions. I
It was not more necessary for the House of
Commons than for the House of Loeds or the. Crown
to observe its true functions. But what was it that
a party in the House of Commons asked the House
of Lords to do this session ? They, were expected
to reject a bill for the abolition of church-rates, a
bill for the repeal of the paper duty, and a bill for
providing a very moderate extension of the franchise
to the people of the United Kingdom. (Laughter
and cheers.) Though he had criticised with, he be-
lieved, no unjust severity, the conduct of the aris-
tocratic class, he never laid upon them burdens so
onerous, he might say labours so perilous, and even
fatal as those which they were now desired to per-
font ea the bidding of an exasperated and baffled
minority :in the House of Commons. Mr. Bright
their proceed6el to express his conviction that at this
moment the educational institutions towards the
support of which meeby hundred thousand pounds
were voted by Parliament were not to be compared,
in point of the information and instruction commu-
nicated, to the results achieveel.
by the abolition of
the newspaper stamp—results lc
aids would be im-
mensely increased when the paper duty" itself was
finally abolished. There was too genseralil7 in the
House of Lords an unreasoning and ignorant Olarm
at the spread of the newspaper press in so cs!leall
form and with so extensive a circulation as to per-
meate even the very lowest class of society in thi..s
kingdom. He hoped that the kill would not be re-
jected through the rash menace of Lord Derby;
but, if it were, it must not be forgotten that it was
introduced on the responsibility of the Cabinet.
This must be treated, therefore, as a Cabinet ques-
tion. If the Government submitted to surrender
their own dignity and the rights of the House of
Commons to Lord Derby and his friends, then the
Government would be degraded, the exalted office
which Mr. Gladstone filled would be debased, and
the Chancellor of the Exchequer would be no more
than a mere clerk conjointly of the two houses, in
no degree independent, and unable to do those
things which in his conscience he believed to
be essential to the welfare of his country. The
House of Commons also would be humiliated to the
last degree. What would be said by all the great
men who had adorned the pages of our history
from the days of the Revolution to the present time
if they could come back to behold the English
House of Commons in its most triumphant position
and in the height of its honour surrender one of its
' privileges for which they shed their blood and
spared no sacrifice ? He did not, however, believe
that the Government would trifle with this ques-
tion, or tamely surrender the great interests com-
mitted to its care. (Cheers.) But, if they did eo,
then the Government was irretrievably lost—not
by the ordinary fiat of a majority before which the
Government can retire with a hope of some time
returning to power, but with an amount of odium
—he might almost say of execration, or at least of
contempt and pity, which would render it impos-
sible for those statesmen ever again to possess the
confidence of the people. What would happen
then P The old thing over again, he supposed.
(A laugh.) Lord Derby in one house, and Mr.
Disraeli in the other ; men in power who- had no
principle. (Hisses and cheers.) Wherever they
seemed to be 'travelling, if they studied with
minutest investigation the pages of their political
Bradshaw, they would find that every line con-
verged to one point, and that was Downing-street.
(Cheers and hisses.) 'With such men in office, Par-
liamentary Reform would inevitably be postponed,
and our foreign relations would, he feared, run
great risk of embroilment. There could be no doubt
that over Europe, if Lord Derby were to come into
office now, there would pass a shudder of appre-
hension, and, instead of the growing tranquillity
for which they all hoped, and he trusted at times
all prayed, there would be an increase of excitement
gathering to terror, and he did not believe the peace
of Europe would be worth twelve months' pur-
chase. He hoped, however, that all this threat of
rejecting the repeal of the paper duty would come
to nothing, and that wiser heads than Lord Derby's
in the House of Lords would temper his passion
and advise him to moderate courses. They would
then have the satisfaction of seeing that harmony
was preserved between the two houses—that re-
spect for our institutions was not diminished—
that the great industry of papermaking was set free
—that the press was no longer to be bound down
by taxation ; and everybody in the United King-
dom would feel that in regard to great fiscal ques-
tions the present session was one of the best and
noblest the Parliament of England had ever seen.
(Cheers.) The hon. gentleman concluded by ex-
horting his countrymen to uphold the privileges of
the House of Commons which their fathers had
contended for, and which they would be recreant
and unworthy children now to surrender.
Mr. W. WILES moved that a petition should be
sent to the House of Lords, setting forth the objec-
tionable character of the paper duty, and that for
their lordships to refuse their consent to the repeal,
after the House of Commons and the Crown had
sanctioned it, would be an usurpation of the privi-
leges of the House of Commons and of the rights of
th people, and praying that their lordships would
therefore consent to the bill.
The motion was seconded by Mr. W. C. BEN-
NETT, and carried by the meeting, as was also a
third resolution appointing a deputation to present
an address to Lord Derby entreating him to re-
consider the proposal he had made to the House of
Lords.
The meeting then broke up.