The Sun.
London, England, 1860-07-06 00:00:00

---- .
........ • -,, ....1....2.7,,,, , •. - .... - . ,_. -.- . ~. --..- .
it., .. • • - - __ __ _ ------ - - - - - - ---- ---- - • - - ---.....-.---.....--- - _ -_-- - -
..,
....... .. . , . :.- .......,....::
_-,..., - • . ' . _. . •
- , 1 •- ,
... . . .. ,
: ..
''.--
.
~ . .
. ,
, P' ~ . ~. • . . _ _ _ .
, ~ ......................-......„--,____...,........._
..-........... .........--• THE SUN, LONDON FRIDAY EVENINO- JULY 6
,
_ 1860.
____ . __

fin view, which was to constrain and coerce this house to
give its attention to matters of supply before matters of
grievance, find it was in order to carry that point that they
made this large admission, that they would not so much
as advise in matter of supply. The House of Lords failed
in carrying their point, and they never repeated that ad-
-mission. On the contrary, they entirely withdrew it, and
in the year 1671, as well as upon subsequent occasions,
they asserted largely their right to deal with matter of
supply, sometimes in broader terms, sometimes in narrower
terms. Sometimes they said generally that they could not
be ousted of that right ; sometimes they claimed merely a
right to abate a tax ; sometimes they referred in particular
to those cases in which considerations of trade were involved
and said that at any rate they were as good judges of the in-
terests of trade as were ths, House of Commons, but since
1640 they never made any admission—on the contrary, in
1671 they entirely w'alsdrow the admission which they had
made—of the priv;:leges and rights of the House of Com-
mons. Therefore, if we look at the theory of this case, the
two houses are. absolutely at variance. (Hear, hear.) With
limited excel,tic,ns, introduced into the case by recent modi-
fications ors war own standing orders, which have taken place
within the meraoryof some us, the two houses are, if we
look at the question abstractedly, at absolute variance. The
llstuse of Commons claims, by its privilege, every thing
wherein money is mentioned ; the House of Lords recog-
mising by no act of its own any distinction, but also claim-
ing a legislative power without limits. It is quite a mistake
to suppose that the House of Lords has ever made the ad-
mission that a money bill cannot originate there. By prac-
tice a money bill does not originate in, the House of Lords,
but there is no admission that a money bill cannot originate
there, Just in the same way, there is no admission on the
part of the House of Lords that a money bill cannot be
amended there. Strange to say, some great doctors of the
constitution are reported to have stated on a recent occasion
that it was a principle admitted on all hands that no money
bill could be amended in the House of Lords, Why, sir, on
the contrary, not only is there nothing in the rules of the
House of Lords, so far, at least, as the researches of the
committee have gone, to prevent such amendment, but it is
actually the fact that the cases of amending money bills in
the House of Lords are more frequent than those in which
such bills have been rejected by that house. (Hear, hear.)
The truth is, I apprehend, that under cover of these broad
and, in themselves, perhaps, untenable and extravagant
doctrines of privilege, the House of Commons formally
clrdming everything, and the House of Lords formally con-
ceding nothing—under cover of that apparent conflict,
there has been a real, and until the present time an un-
broken, harmony for 200 years. The secret of that har-
mony is that both houses by these claims, apparently so
conflicting, have meant the same thing. The House of
Commons by its privileges with respect to Money
13ills has meant to reserve to itself the integrity of
the taxing power, and the House of Lords, by declining to
admit the claim of the House of Commons, has intended to
preserve to itself an effective means of preventing the House
of Commons from forcing upon it other matters of general
legislation under cover of Money Bills. (Hear, hear.) I
have just made a statement which sounds like an authorita-
tive exposition of the practice of the constitution ; but, of
course, I mean it only as an assertion which is to be tested
by the evidence of facts and documents. Let any gentle-
man review the entire list of these precedents, and see
whether every one of them does not completely coincide
with the principles I have laid down. There is not, so far
as I know, a single case upon record since the present sys-
tem of taxation was established until the Paper Duties
Repeal Bill of 1860, in which the House of Lords has
attempted to interfere with the taxing function of the
House of Commons. (Cheers.) Therefore, when it is said
that we are to maintain our essential privileges inviolate,
what I ask myself, and what I ask myself in vain, is what
are the essential privileges of the House of Commons which
it is intended to maintain inviolate, and which are not
violated by the rejection of the Paper Duties Repeal Bill?
(Cheers.) It appears to mo that the origination of a bill
for the imposition of a tax, or the amendment of a money
bill, is a slight thing compared to the claim to prevent the
repeal of a tax. (Cheers.) I have said that the precedents
are entirely adverse to the step which has been taken. The
mode in which many of these pretended precedents have
exploded has really been almost ludicrous. I may refer to
one case, and it will be the only ono with which I shall
trouble the house. It is the case of the Excise duty upon
stone bottles. A bill was introduced to " Repeal the Duty
upon Stone Bottles, and to grant other duties in lieu
thereof." Such was the title of the bill. It was quoted as
an instance of the House of Lords interfering to arrest the
repeal of a tax. What did that bill do ? In the first
place, it was a bill which had not a fiscal, but a political
object, that object being protection. But, besides that,
though it is true that it repealed the duty upon stone
bottles—as whenever we alter duties we always begin
with repealing them—yet it imposed upon stone bottles
a duty double that which it repealed. (Hear) hear.) It
was not a bill of repeal at all in any intelligible sense of
the term, but a bill to double the duties upon stone bottles.
(Cheers.) The precedents, I repeat, are entirely to the effect
which has been substantially stated by my noble friend ;
that is to say, they do not cover; in the substantial and es-
nutlet points, the act that has now been done, because none
of them were interferences with the taxing power of this
house. Some of them wore interferences with bills that had
a preamble of supply ; but these were bills which were pre-
pared for objects other than those of taxation. Taxation
was incidental; those other objects were the main pur-
poses; and the House of Lords justly declined to part with
its jurisdiction over matters of legislation and policy, on
account of the privileges of this In use with respect to money.
But I am bound to say that, even if the precedents were
otherwise than they are, it seriously requires the considera-
tion of this house, whether its own essential functions are to
be maintained or not. (Cheers.) I do not deny, as re-
sponsible for the finances of the country, that the sum of
perhaps £700,000 which will be brought into the Exche-
quer by the continuance of the paper duty between the 15th
of August and the Ist of April is exceedingly acceptible,
provided it be honestly obtained. (Hear, hear, and a laugh.)
But I must confess that, although no person is more likely
than myself to be liable to the influence and seductions of
money, yet there are other things that are more valuable
even than £700,000. (Cheers.) I believe that the ques-
tion, whether the exclusive power of taxation is to rest with
the House of Commons, is a question of ten—nay, a hun-
dred—times greater importance and value than the centime•
once of the paper duty. (Cheers.) I have said, that there
is no instance in which, when this house has intended the
repeal of a tax, the House of Lords has interfered to arrest
it. Some gentlemen have said, that on the present occa-
sion the House of Commons was very foolish, and the House
of Lords very wise ; that the House of Commons had made
a great and undue sacrifice of public revenue, and the House
of Lords interposed to arrest the House of Commons in its
career of extravagance and improvidence. That is the alle-
gation. But, without entering at this moment into the
argument, with respect to which, however, I am prepared
to maintain all that I have maintained on previous
occasions—(cheers)—l want to know whether that really
is the constitution under which we live ? (Continued cheer-
ing.) The House of Commons cannot be infallible in
matters of finance any more than in other matters. No
doubt the House of Commons may make errors, of which I
shall give you an instance presently, but I wish to know
whether those errors in matters of finance are or are not to
be liable to correction by the House of Lords? (Cheers.) If
they are, what becomes of your privileges ? (Cheers.) Why
does the House of Lords ever differ from us ? No doubt be-
cause it thinks we have committed an error, and it can sug-
gest an improvement. That is perfectly legitimate, but the
question now raised is whether they have the power of re-
view which is exercised by the House of Lords in all mat •
ters of general legislation is likewise to be extended to
finance, and whether the function of the House of Commons
in imposing and repealing taxes is to be divided as to its
eiercise and the responsibility which it involves with the
House of Lords? (Cheers.) I think this case, besides the
positive illustration of precedents, is susceptible likewise of
negative illustration. The argument is that the House of
Lords has interfered to correct the folly of the Commons in
giving away revenue which was supposed to be required
for the purposes of the year, or, rather, for the purposes of
future years, because, in point of fact, it does not seem to
have been stated that the revenue was required for the pur-
poses of the present year. It will be required, or other
money in lieu of it will bo required, for the purposes of the
year, and I do not at all disguise the difficulty in which
this house is placed whet! it has to vindicate its privileges
and insist upon its vote on the one hand, and to receive a
considerable addition to the income of the year on the other.
But what I want to say is, that the ll:use of Lords has not
upon fernier occasions considered itself to be charged with
thin responsibility. In 1853 a bill for the repeal of the soap
duties was passed at a considerably later period of the ses-
sion than the day on which the Paper Duties Bill was re-
jected. That bill was passed at a time when undoubtedly
the prospects of the country with respect to the probability
of war with Russia had become
serious alarm, and a very general such that there was very
encountered, and that a aecl belief that war would be
burdens of the country, amm increase would be made to the
who recollect the circumstances sfure that those gentlemen
the month of July, 1853,
will concur in the statement I have
member aright, tho Emperor of R just made. If I re-
ussiiiaadhatadkalready occupied
the Principalities ; several debates
place in this
house ; considerable excitement prevaileden*
the soap duties Shouldg not be
; various peers in another place actually urged
tehd the
theP public
liability of war as a reason why
repealed. I think I may say that the Government of the
day would not have proposed the repeal of the soap duties
in July had it not been a proposal to which they felt
themselves pledged by their previous proceedings, and b
the sanction which the house of Commons had given to ity
by its vote. But the House of Lords at tinh period passed
the bill for the repeal of the soap duties, and entirely de.
olined the plea which was urged even for a short delay in
the consideration of the measure. Why did the House of
Lords do that ? If I remember rightly, the right hon.
gentleman the member for Droitwich and others, exercising
the privilege of fair criticism on the acts of the Government,
complained greatly at the time of the loss of revenue. They
used just the same epithets then that we hear now. They
asked what could be more unwise, more reckless, more im-
provident, more profligate, than to part with the revenue
front the soap duties at the opening of a probable war in
Europe. Yet, although a war with Russia was likely, I
Proowao, to impose much laaTior burdens dm a wax with

China, the) Ito Use of Lords entirely declined to meddle with
a matter in regard to which they felt they had no responsi-
bility. In accordance with the sound doctrine laid down by
the Prime Minister of the day, they declared that it was the
act of the House of Commons, and if ways and moans were
wanted to carry on the service of the country, on that house
would rest the responsibility of providing them. (Hear.)
There i, a view of the matter which I should have thought
would have suggested itself to those who have directed the
councils of the House of Lords. When the House of Com-
mons entertains financial proposals it must hereafter look
not only to their merits, but to their probable popularity.
(Hear.) They must recollect that there are those lying in
ambush for them—(hear)--who will bo ready to interfere at
the proper moment. If it chance that in considering the
claims of various ta•:es for reduction they make that choice
which, according to their judgment and conscience, they
believe to be for the good of the country rather than that
which will probably meet the popular view, the must bear
in mind that there are those who will take advantage
of their having acted on their conscientious convictions,
and who will use the opportunity to reject the repeal of the
tax. (Hear, hear.) That is the very case which has hap-
pened this year. (Hear, hear) After it had been deter-
mined that a certain amount of taxation should be remit-
ted, the question, in the first place fur the Government, and
in the second place for the House of Commons, was whether
the paper duties should be repealed, or whether a reduction

speech of the noble viscount was satisfactory to us ; and,
what is more, I venture to say it will be satisfactory to the
country. The speech was becoming one in the high posi-
tion of the noble lord, though it seems to have mightily in-
censed the Chancellor of the Exchequer. (Laughter.) What
followed ? After the noble lord sat down, I had still hopes
that we should have a real debate, because I felt that speech
without action would be despicable. I had hopes from the
hon. member for Plymouth, whom I saw preparing himself
with oranges. (Laughter.) I had hopes that he would
proceed with his amendmant ; and I could not believe the
whispers that the amendment was about to be withdrawn,
surrounded as that hon. member was by so many cham-
pions of popular rights, and backed up by the hon. member
for Birmingham and the noble lord the member for Mary-
lebone. But the hon. member did withdraw his amend •
ment, thereby virtually admitting—my speech will not cover
the amendment I am about to propose. I cannot expect that
my arguments will convince the house. But though the hon.
member withdrew his amendment he persisted in making his
speech. I did not pay that attention to his speech which I
would have done if I had thought him in earnest. But I pass
it, by for the moment to revert to the speech of the Chancellor
of the Exchequer. Without any disturbance from any
speeches on this side of the house, without a word said to
excite his irritable temper, the right hon. gentleman sprung
from his seat to at tack these Opposition benches as partisans
of a gigantic innovation on the constitution. (Cheers.) Oh,
yes, I shall put his argument as fully and fairly as you can
desire, and I will contrast his speech with the speech of the
noble viscount ; and what is more, I shall confront his speech
with the miserable resolution he supports. If the right hon.
gentleman believes the tenth part of what ho has stated—
if this be a gigantic innovation on the constitution—if the
functions of the House of Commons be invaded—if this be
a time not for speech but for action, why does the right hon.
gentleman content himself with words P—why does he turn
round and say " I cordially approve the speech of the noble
viscount ; I cordially approve of his resolution ?" a resolu-
tion which all who have spoken from those benches hare
pronounced to be worthless, pitiful, contemptible, as one
gentleman expressed it, covering the House of Commons
with contempt. The right hon. the Chancellor of the Ex-

that he sits in a Cabinet whose members opposed the con-
tinuance of church rates, and that he represents the ancient
University of Oxford ; and I cannot therefore wonder at the
attack which he made to-night on the constitution of this
country, for it is clear that by that constitution the House
of Lords had as good a right to reject the bill in question as
that the Commons had a right to propose it. In the United
States of America the Senate have the power of opposing
money bills. (" They are elected" from Mr. Bright.) The
members of the Senate are elected, but that his nothing to
do with the matter. The wise men who framed the Ameri-

the great Liberal party. Now, sir, their conduct to• night,
especially in the attacks they made on this side of the house
—the repeated wonderment which they have expressed at
our taking no part in the debate, when really we thought it
might have been closed hours ago with the unanimous feel-
ing of the house—seems to me very extraordinary, even if
they themselves had been prepared to second their speeches
by actions so much wanted. But that does not appear to
be the case. I remember very often in old days the
ridicule that has been thrown on some unhappy member
who, on an important occasion, has given notice of an
amendment, and who, when the house was full. and its
pulse beat high, and the atmosphere was loaded with rhe-
toric and excitement, surprised the house by withdrawing
his amendment. I have always considered that one of the
most perilous, and perhaps one of themost absurd positions
in which an hon. member can be placed. But now there
is not one but three. (Cheers.) There are three Richmonds
in the field. There aro three amendments, and, strange to
say, the same sad destiny of suicide which awaited them
all. (Cheers and laughter.) These three rash gentlemen
proposed three amendments; and that those three gentle •
men having determined to take that course, should follow
it by one which necessarily covers gentlemen with absurdity
seems to me to be one of the strangest events which ever
occurred in the House of Commons. (Cheers and laughter.)
But what is more wonderful is, that the three amendments
are the reasons which are given for their withdrawal.
There are amendments to the resolutions upon the table of
the house, and because, to use the language of hon. gen-
tlemen opposite, the great Liberal party. these amendments
express nothing, and are totally inadequate to the occasion,
they will render it necessary that the great Liberal party
should meet early to-morrow morning to consider them,
and therefore they were going to vote for the resolutions.
(Cheers and laughter.) That does appear to me to bo a
course which is perplexing to comprehend. But see the
aggregate of circumstances which renders the present
position of those gentlemen still more contradictory, incon-
sistent, incoherent, and I may even say absurd. It is that
they have had the whole of the debate to themselves.
(Cheers and laughter.) It is not that they have not en-
joye 1 the opportunity—that they have not availed them-
selves of the occasion to vindicate that course—to make it
clear, and, as the hon. gentleman has just said, to give it
" absolute lucidity," for every advantage that men can have
either in exposition, or demonstration, or repetition, they
have had, and the only consequence of the monopoly of de-
bate which the party devoted to those peculiarly free prin-
ciples that they have always supported, may, perhaps, ac-
count for their confusion. Unaccustomed to monopoly, as
they are, they know not how to deal with that porten-
tous implement, but in consequence of having had the whole
night to themselves, having carried on the debate with a
knowledge and unvaried ability still more remarkable be-
cause they had not the advantage of replying to any person,
they have so managed affairs that they have brought
forward three amendments—not less thanthree amendments
to the Ministerial resolutions, and they have withdrawn those
resolutions, because those resolutions, in their opinion, were
inadequate to the occasion. (Cheers and laughter.) I for-
got one hon. gentleman, and I should wish to do him jus-
tice, the hon. member for Banbury. Besides, the three re-
solutions of which we had formal notice, with an ingenuous-
ness, which, considering the circumstances, appeared to be
marvellous, the hon. member for Banbury informed us that
he also had prepared an amendment, but had not thought
fit to place it on the table of the house. I think the hon.
member must have blessed his stara—(cheers and laughter)
—for his prudence, and I think he had very good cause.
(Renewed laughter.) Now, sir, I have touched with the
impartiality which the noble lord claimed to-night for him-
self, on the unjust remarks on the conduct of her Majesty's
Opposition. The Chancellor of the Exchequer, not satis-
fied with answering the Prime Minister, fell foul of the
Opposition—(cheers and laughter)—because they did not
follow him and assist him in the unseemly fray. (Cheers.)
The organised Opposition below the gangway, apparently
not yet experienced in opposition, trembling over their
own amendments—(cheers and laughter)—and getting up
successfully answers to themselves, not satisfied with the
result of the debate, can do nothing else to get themselves
out of the scrape but turn round and abuse the Opposition
on account of their silence. There are moments when si-
lence is, I think, the better part of valour. (Cheers and
counter cheers.) Fine things might be said of the virtue
of silence, and I recommend hon. gentlemen to consult the
€lreek sages and Greek poets, and they will find how incon-
sistent is the course pursued by hon. gentlemen opposite.
But that attack never, in mymind, assumed a form of grosser
injustice than in the speech of the hon. member who pre-
ceded me. That hon. gentleman deplored the loss of the
Reform Bill, and attributed it entirely either to the silence
or the speeches—for the cause was somewhat ambiguous—
of the Opposition; and the hon. gentleman read us a great
lecture, dealing with the future with all that liberality
which distinguishes the prophets of the new school, and
fastened en us the high responsibility of the defeat of that
measure, for the discomfiture of which he said that the
noble lord the Secretary of State was quite blameless. But
it is true that the bill was defeated—whether defeated by si-
lence or by speeches—was it defeated only bytheOpposition,
or mainly by the Opposition ? Why, there was a troop of
orators opposite more anxious, not less eloquent, than our-
selves, who distinguished themselves on that occasion, and
among them was a young knight who won his spurs, and
that with great distinction, and who to-night has maintained
his reputation with an ability I am only too glad to acknow-
ledge. And no ene opposed that measure with a more un-
compromising spirit I believe than the hon. gentleman who
has just sat down. (Cries of "No no.") Well, I believe
the hon. gentleman expressed his determination to vote for
the Government, and made a most able speech, proving iu
every detail that it was a most inadequate measure. (Cheers
and laughter.) I believe he took the same course with re-
spect to the Reform Bill as he has taken on the present re
solutions. What he wanted in both instances was a mea-
sure which would lead to action, and I suspect there will be
as much action on these resolutions as on the late Reform
Bill.

• such an exercise would be viewed with jealousy by this
house, as if it ought not to be viewed with jealousy, still it
appears to me that the second resolution is one, containing
as it does not a qualified but an absolute acknowledgment
of the right of the Lords to reject bills "on the whole,"
the propriety of which could not, by any one sitting on
this side of the house, for a moment be questioned. (Hear,
hear.) I now come to the third resolution—(cheers)—
which seems to give such consolation to hon. gentlemen
opposite, below the gangway. (Laughter.) I have read
it with the attention it deserves, and I find it embodies a
suggestion made in the last two paragraphs of the draught
report of the chairman of the late committee upon
precedents—that chairman whose ability the noble lord at
the head of the Government has candidly acknowledged—
(hear, hear)—and whose moderate and safe opinions upon
all political subjects must be admired. I think, even by
those who do not agree with him. (Cheers.) If hon. gentle-
men will only look at the two last paragraphs in the
draught report of the chairman—paragraphs that were not
admitted into the report that was presented to the house—
they will find the suggestions that form the gist and mat-
row of the third resolution. We threw them out in the
committee generally upon the ground that our expression
of opinion should not be admitted into our report, and those
paragraphs expressed an opinion. There were:some members

Paper Duty Bill was not only justified by the law but by
policy. My noble friend's case is an exaniple of the danger
of candour exercised towards an adversary- My noble friend
said that technically they could not say that the Lords were
wrong in rejecting the bill, for you could not ask them to say
"content" or " not content" to a bill withoett allowing them
to say what they pleased. (Hear, hear.) Itty noble friend
wished to
made that admission. But with regard to Ihtehpolicy, my
h majority
onoblefave thea
Lgfriendeonr
Lords
general
sahal iapddo tldhv
eeafrte
oahvteee
rdd ifitdhn
aantnocbt
ei
lb es
1,
bbl i
ueectvaetuhthat
eey
conceived
themselves in this particular case justified in policy. (;,tlear,
hear.) That was giving to them the utmost credit for ths."'ir
motives—(hear, hear)—but it was very different from saying,
that policy justified the course they had taken. The right
hon. gentleman takes advantage of this statement and cone
tends that the Lords have done not only that which is within
the technical confines of the law, but which is justified by
policy. I must say, what cannot be denied on either hand,
that, for the last 200 years the House of Lords have never
exercised their power of rejecting a financial bill of this kind.
The House of Lords have never rejected a bill which was
part of the financial scheme of the year, and which was' to
remove from industry a very great burden ; for such an act
there was no precedent. The right hon. gentleman also spoke
of the resolutions. The first resolution asserts in the terms of
the resolution of 1692, that to grant supplies is an essential
part of our constitution, because they are not in the form of
imposing a tax, but are grants of the Commons. There is
no power in the Crown or in the House of Lords to impose
a tax, but the Commons have the power to grant a part of
that which is their own. If that is the case, what a strange
anomaly it must be that from the 15th of August next a
tax of £1,000,000 a year shall continue imposed not by the
authority of the House of Commons, or the assent of the
Crown, but simply by a vote of the House of Lords alone.
The right hon. gentleman said that the second resolution
admitted the power of the Lords, but at the same time states
that the exercise of this power is justly regarded by the
House of Commons with peculiar jealousy. But why with
peculiar jealousy? If the House of Lords has done what is
quite right and usual, and for which there are many prece-
dents, there is no necessity for jealousy. An act of this
kind is regarded with peculiar jealousy, because it is not the
proper right of the Lords. We have the Mutiny Bill pro-
posed to us every year, and we could reject it ; but that
would be most indiscreet, unless some very great danger
arose of an attack on the liberties of England by the Crown
through the agency of a standing army. The postage was
reduced to Id. in the face of a deficient revenue; but the
difference was, that then the Duke of Wellington was the
leader of the House of Lords, and that accounted for a dif-
ferent course being taken to that which was pursued on the
present occasion. But as the House of Commons is now
led I have no such confidence. (Oh, oh.) I believe that,!
however rash and unjustifiable their present conduct
may be, it will be followed up by other steps more un-
justifiable still, unless this house shall assert its
rights. The right honourable gentleman says we
did a rash thing in appointing a committee ofprecedents.
Why, then, did not the right hon, gentleman oppose that
committee ? (Hear, hear.) The appointment of that com-
mittee was of itself an announcement that the House of
Lords had stepped out of the paths of the constitution—(no,
no)—and the right hon. gentleman, who did not oppose the
appointment of that committee at the time, new says that
it was rashly and hastily done. Certainly, if it be true, as
hon. gentlemen opposite by their cheers seem to intimate,
that this was nothing out of the usual course of the consti-
tution, then it would be rash to appoint a committee of pre-
cedents. The right hon. gentleman the member for the
University of Dublin is surprised at my laying so much
stress on the amount of the tax which the Lords have re-
fused to repeal, but I do consider the amount a very
material point in this question, because the. House of Com-
mons, enjoying the privilege of taxation, feeling secure that
its right of taxation was not contradicted by any one, easily
allowed such bills as those for the repeal of the duty on
stone bottles, or for salt used in manure, to be rejected with
comparative indifference. But it is a very different thing
when the House of Lords rejects a bill for the repeal of up-
wards of a million; a man then asks himself where is this
to stop—will the Lords reject a bill for the repeal of taxes
amounting to 10 millions, would they have had the right
of rejecting the whole 78 millions to which the Chancellor
of the Exchequer referred ? The hon. and learned mem-
ber for the University says boldly that they have that
right, and that they would have been justified by the
constitution in rejecting the whale seventy-eight millions
that had been repealed since 1815. But that would
be a total change in our constitution. (Cheers.) It would
be a new form of government—not that under which we
have been accustomed to live, but a form of government
under which the House of Lords, that has no representa-
tive character, would have the right of taxing the people,
contrary to all the doctrines that have been held, not for
200, but for 400 years. (Cheers.) Then I come to the last
and the most important of these resolutions. The right hon.
gentleman says that it is little more than the last paragraph
of the report which was drawn up by the chairman of the
committee. But there is this great distinction, that whereas
it appeared from the last paragraph of our chairman's re-
port that he gave up all our powers, and left. the House of
Commons in a state of despondency and confusion, this re-
solution properly and t: uly affirms that this house has power
to guard itself against any undue exercise of the power of
the Lords. This of course means a great deal. (Laughter.)
It means that the House of Lords may at some future time
resort to an undue exercise of its powers, and that if they do
this house has means of preventing any such exercise of its
powers. I think it would be unwise to state in detail what
those means are. Some gentlemen may be of opinion that
the most effectual means would be to propose that the taxes
should be voted annually; but it is quite clear that in
one way or another, and in other ways than that to which
I have just alluded, the House of Commons has the means
of vindicating its rights and of maintaining its power
of taxation. I must say a few words on the ques-
tion— first, whether the Hout e of Commons has
the right to control the taxation ; and, second, how
that right may be maintained. With regard to the first
question, I must say that the proposition which the hon.
member for Birmingham maintained in committee embraces
the usual practice of the constitution. The Queen addresses
the House of Commons for the supplies—the House of
Commons grants them ; the Speaker carries up the bill of
appropriation by which these supplies are distributed, and
if the House of Lords were to demand to see the estimates
we should refuse to give them. There was a remarkable
case in the year 1786, in which Mr. Pitt proposed a scheme
for reducing the National Debt by the payment of a quarter
of a million every three months. It was stated in the
House of Lords that the real surplus did not exceed £25,000
a year ; and to clear up the matter they sent to the House
of Commons for the documents which would show both the
expenditure and the revenue. But Mr. Pitt proposed that
the house should refuse information to that house .(Cheers.)
He said, therefore, that the old practice of the constitution
was for the House of Commons to grant supplies—to give
and grant that which was their own, as Lord Chatham
said : and it was their duty to balance the deficiency in the
revenue with additional taxes. That might be a matter of
difficulty for the House of Commons, but it was not for the
House of Lords to attempt to supply the deficiencies of re-
venue. It will hardly be denied, I suppose, that we have
at least a concurrent power in the taxation of the country;
but if the House of Lords are admitted to be concurrent in
their jurisdiction with us—if they are to be admitted our
partners in taxation, the consequence will be utter confusion
in our finances, and each house will endeavour to take off
that which is most unpopular at the moment, or which will
gain them the most of the popular sympathies of the coun-
try. Then, as to the question of the indifference of public
feeling on this question, I say it is because our powers and
functions are considered settled and safe that se little alarm
is felt as to our maintaining our rights against the Lords.
I was reading the other day that on the question of the
privileges of this house in the time of Charles 1., in the case
of the five members, 5,000 men came up from Buckingham-
shire to defend their member against any breach of the pri-
vileges of the house in his person. The right hon. gentle-
man needs no such escort—(laughter)—he and the other
members of this house are quite secure. (Cheers.) The
difference is this, that then the privileges of this house were
believed to be in danger ; now they are considered safe.
(Cheers.) But though that is the case it is our business to
see that there is net a change in the constitution, according
to which the power of the House of Commons to give, and
grant, and regulate the finances of the country, should be
transferred from the House of Commons to the Senate. It
is not the same as the Senate in America, because there the
right is exercised by those who are indirectly the represen •
tatives of the people. The only similarity to such. a case
is in Russia, because there the estimates and the expendi-
ture are laid before the Senate, and are voted by them.
(Cheers.) The right hon. gentleman opposite alluded to
some new plan of taxation which was to be laid on pro-
perty. But that has not been the case of late years, for we
have diminished the taxes on Customs and Excise, and we
have provided otherwise for the service of the year to allow
time for those sources of revenue to recover. But the indi-
rect taxation so far from diminishing had considerably in-
creased, and the amount of that taxation, which some years
ago was only £33,000,000 a year, is now £44,000,000. The
result, therefore, shows the wisdom of the financial policy
which we have of late years pursued. We have abolished
the duties on salt, on glass, and on various articles of ge-
neral consumption, and we have increased not only the ge-
neral productiveness of the revenue, but the productiveness
of that portion of it in particular which is raised by indi-
rect taxation. I believe that the proposed abolition of the
paper duty was conceived in the general spirit of our resent
financial policy, and that if it had passed into law it we,...d
.
have been productive of the same happy consequences'
The The Lords cannot have rejected the bill on aoconvel
general deficiency in the revenue, for they
the estimates or the supplies for the Year
no means of knowing what was to be the
they desired to
have given their vote in this sense, thatm
which we have
put a stop to that wise system of f2,lnotiecess, and to for many years followed with so r?"'"`"
snail not be relieved, that
de-
Clare that for the future ludas Y
tx fon shall continue to be
the great :articles of consizlint:
if the national charge up
taxed at the fullest amount, If
If that was the int Von
landed property is diminished. additional ground for jealousyen
ion
a
of the Lords it form
on the part of
this resolutions have used. The present
i hts. Th '
state moderately
firmly what are our r g e right hon. gentleman
but
speech of my noble friend was impartial,
says that the
ddi ified • d
statesmanlike, an , I believe that it is en-
b t •
titled to that praise, u is entitled to it because it met
the occasion, but did not go farther the occasion. My noble
friend proposed a remedy for the evil we have suffered and
s ahouse of the
a security against the danger of its recurrence • but the mo-
tion does not enter into any empty defiance of House of
Lords. 1 think that however indiscreet may have been the
conduct of the House of Louis upon this occasion it will be
our duty to continue in a calm and even course • and I
should be very sorry that their act should at all weaken' or
endanger the authority of that house as one great branch
of our national legislature. (Cheers.)
On the auction of Mr. DIGBY SEYMOUR the debate was
adjourned to this day.
The Leith Harbour and Docks bill passed through com-
mit tee. powajnebrai:wahtthiefhydrctaeeyry

can constitution placed that power in the hands of the Se-
nate for the purpose of guarding against the rash legislation
of the lower house. Do you mean to say that the power
which the Senate exercises in America is not to be exer-
cised by the House of Peers in this country. In that case I
recommend hon. gentlemen opposite to enter into deep eGn-
ference ith the Chancellor of the Exchequer for the pur-
pose of producing the measure that is to revolutionise the
British empire. The resolutions proposed by the noble vis-

count are, I admit, nothing more than platitudes, but there
is nothing harsh or offensive in them, and have been proposed
in a temperate and an agreeable manner. If, however, there

are men who seek to strip the House of Lords of a power
they hays hitherto exercised, let them reduce their inten-
tions to action, and let us have a frank discussion—a final
discussion, whether we are to live under the ancient consti-
tution of these realms, or whether that constitution is now
to be revolutionised. (Cheers )
Lord FERMOY said the Liberal party, reserving to
themselves the right to take other steps, thought they were
not abandoning their principles in allowing these resolutions
to pass. But he did not approve the speech of Lord Palmer-
ston, to which that of the Chancellor of the Exchequer was,
he thought, a complete and convincing answer. Ho denied
that there was a single case in which the Lords had rejected
a bill purely financial sent to them by the Commons.
Mr. DILLWYN believed that the object of the Lords in
what they had done was to dictate to the country who
should govern it.

of the committee, to whom I shall not particularly refer,
who were opposed to the admission of these paragraphs
upon other, and perhaps higher grounds. They thought
they took too low and desponding a view of the privileges
of this house. So, what with the general desire not to ad-
mit an expression of opinion upon the subject, and the ob-
jection of some members who thought that the view of those

should be made in the duties on sugar or tea. The Govern •
meat certainly were well aware that the paper duties con-
stituted an impost which had no great hold on the mind of
the general mass of the consumers of the country; and I
believe the house of Commons was perfectly aware of that
too. (Hear.) But the Government, and as I apprehend
the house of Commons, thought that, under the circum-
stances, probably greater good would be derived from the
repeal of the paper duties than from the reduction of the
sugar duties, because though it would less commend itself
to the popular mind, the benefit which,through the medium
of an extended trade, it would confer on the population of

two paragraphs of tho privileges of this house was of too de-
sponding a character, these as I thought at the time unhappy
paragraphs of the chairman wore omitted. But little did I
think that they would be so elevated in public and even
Ministerial estimation that they would become the basis of
that third resolution which has to-night been the source of
so much solace 3, under circumstances, I admit, of some ad-
versity to hon. gentlemen opposite. (Cheers and laughter.)'
The house will see that I may be able, from my knowledge
of the two paragraphs in question, to throw some light on
those mysterious modes by which in the third resolution we
are told that we have it in our power to vindicate our privi-
leges, and that, in fact, it will be our own fault if they are
ever successfully assailed. I may say in passing that it is
rather unfortunate, considering the tone taken by hon, gen-
tlemen below the gangway, that they should find their only
satisfaction to-night in a resolution which, in vindicating
their privileges against the rude assault of the Lords, admits
that thoseprivileges have been endangered by the lathes and
negligence of the House of Commons itself. (Hear.) The
chairman of the late committee in those omitted paragraphs,
the only paragraphs of his draught report which expressed 1
an opinion and offered remedial counsel, showed that this
house had unwisely parted with its due command over the:
annual taxation of the year, by converting annual taxes,
into taxes for a term; and he indicated that there were;
modes by which we might vindicate our ancient privileges,
by including the whole financial scheme for the year in one'
bill. But it is not the House of Lords that has converted our ,
annual taxation into a permanent taxation. (Hear, hear.)
It is not the House of Lords that has made that dangerous
assault upon the privileges of the House of Commons. It
is Ministers in the House of Commons that have made these
proposals. and it is a willing House of Commons that has
sanctioned them. (Cheers.) Probably it may be said that
they were Tory Ministers who presumed to propose and
who dared to accomplish such " gigantic innovations."
Nothing of the kind. The last and greatest innovation of
the kind occurred under a Whig Ministry, presided over
by a statesman who had the honour and, as 1 think, the
high privilege of sitting in the House of Commons. The
Chief Minister in 1846-7 sat in this House as the Chief
Minister does now, and it was the noble lord the member
for the City of London—whose devotion to the privileges
of this house is not questioned, and whose reputation for
constitutional learning and constitutional spirit all will ad-
mit—who, in proposing that our annual sugar taxes, to the
amount of more than £5,000,000, should become perpetual,
himself by that proposition lessened our command over the
resources of the country, and diminished proportionately
our ability to vindicate our privileges. (Cheers.) I shall
do the noble lord the justice to admit that, when he made
that proposition, he accompanied it by a distinct statement
that he acknowledged the importance and absolute necessity]
of the House of Commons exercisine, a due and efficient con-
trol over the annual taxation of the country, though he
thought there were peculiar reasons—and I admit them—i
the state of the sugar trade at that moment—it was a momen
when great changes were taking place in our colonies, an
when the question of protection to those colonies had as
sumed a character that demanded the attention of this
house—why the sugar duties should become a source of per-
manent taxation ; and he added the declaration, if not the'
ii
pledge, that he would substitute for that branch of taxatie i
annual taxes to an equivalent amount over which the Hous 1
of Commons should exercise its accustomed and beneficia

the country would be greater. (Hear.) The hon. member
for Liskeard (Mr. B. Osborne) says he thinks the repeal of
the paper duties a very bad measure, though, I believe, ho
_ _ _

Sir J. TRELAWNY said he would not support the re-
solutions. If there had been an invasion of their privileges
the house ought to vindicate them by action.
Mr. RICARDO did not accept the resolutions as a settle-
ment of this question, and hoped the house would have an
opportunity to express an opinion upon the constitutional
point.
Sir C. DOUGLAS considered that if these resolutions
were adopted it would be beneath the dignity of the house
not to take the action which ought to follow, and which had
been indicated by the Chancellor of the Exchequer.
Mr. BUTT said in voting for the resolutions ho did not
consider them as conclusive and the third resolution pledged
the house to further action, " to guard for the future against
an- undue exercise of the power exercised by the Lords."
He should vote for the present resolution because he be-
lieved the Lords had infringed the privileges of the Com-
mons.

did not vote against it. Now, I doubt ♦ery much whether
he would have ventured to say that of the reduction of the
sugar duties. No man would have ventured to offer any
strong opposition to the reduction of the sugar duties.
(Hear.) But our proposal of that measure which, though
less popular, we deemed more beneficial, was strongly re-
sisted, and led the House of Lords to devia e from the course
it had pursued without interruption for nearly 200 years.
(Hear.) I want to know what is to be the influence of this

chequer, in a tone of the most virtuous indignation—l hope
it is not assumed—(laughter)—declares that the dearest
rights of the House of Commons are attacked—that it is
the duty of the house to be jealous in the assertion of its
privileges ; and then—oh, most lame and impotent conclu-
sion, which, to my astonishment, was received with cheers
—he turns round and says, " I approve of every word the
noble viscount has spoken." (No, no.) I say yes, yes.
Is there no incongruity between the two grounds which the
right hon. gentleman has taken up. Are you satisfied with
the speech of the right hon, gentleman ? If you approve
what he said why do you not act in the spirit which he
evinced ? I can respect a Radical who acts out his Radical
opinions. I value a Conservative who stands up for his
principles. I have a sincere respect for a constitutional
Whig like the noble viscount, who temperately and calmly
asserts his opinions. But I have no respect for a politician
who pretends to believe that the great interests of the coun-
try are at stake—who asserts that the House of Lords has
not the power which it has assumed ; and then says, I
am satisfied with the resolution which the noble lord has
proposed. What is that resolution ? It is—" That although
the Lords have exercised the power of rejecting bills of se-
veral descriptions relating to taxation, by negativing the
whole, yet the exercise of that power by them has not been
frequent, and is justly regarded by this house with peculiar
jealousy as affecting the right of the Commons to grant the
supplies and to provide the ways and means for the service
of the year." What is this but fairly to imply all that the
Lords claim? It admits in the most unequivocal manner
that the power is vested in the House of Lords ; it acknow-
ledges that they have exercised those rights, and that this
house has not complained of their exercise ; but then it says
that the exercise of this power has always been viewed with
jealousy by this house. Contrast that resolution with the
speech of the right hon. gentleman who has followed up on
this occasion the whole course he has pursued through this
session by a fresh attack on the constitution of this country.
He tells us that the time for action has come. But why
does he not act ? (Hear, hear.) What is the use of this
vague threat ? If wo are to have a struggle for the main-
tenance of the well-beloved constitution of this country the
sooner it begins the better; and I admit that the cause of
the assailants could not be in bettor hands than those of the
Chancellor of the Exchequer. (Hear, hear.) Ho asks how
it has happened that the Lords so seldom exercised tho
power which they claimed ? and my answer is, because they
have rarely had to deal with such a financial Minister and
with such a financial condition as those which they have at
present to encounter. The right hon. gentleman alarmed
the country by his financial schemes, and he sought further
to diminish the national resources by a proposal for the
abolition of the paper duty. The House of Lords rejected
that proposal. I believe that in doing so they meant to
rebuke the policy of the right honourable gentleman, and
I feel persuaded that in the present aspect of affairs in this
country and out of this country they acted wisely—they
acted from the highest sense of duty and the loftiest patriot-
ism. The right hon. gentleman says that there is no prece-
dent in this case to justify the House of Lords in the course
they have adopted. In considering that statement of the
right hon. gentleman, I ask hon. gentlemen to bear in mind
that in that house sit the men who built up the fabric—the
noble fabric of our jurisprudence, the work of whose lives
has been to examine precedents, and to apply them justly
—the ablest thinkers, the most consummate lawyers, the
most successful men of business, and some of the very
best writers and speakers this kingdom can produce.
These have all joined in condemning the policy of the
right hon. gentleman, and have felt themselves justified in
opposing it by the rejection of the bill which he introduced.
The noble lord, who addressed the house in a tone very
different from that of his colleague, justly directed the at-
tention of the house to the language held by the Attorney-
General in the year 1671. But I must observe that that
language was not an admission, but a statement of the
rights of the House of Lords. The Lords asked, if you do
not allow us to initiate or to alter bills, where, then, are our
privileges ? And what could be more emphatic, concise, or
conclusive than the answer given to that question by the
Commons ? That answer was that the Lords had still a right
to negative the whole of a bill. (" Read on," from Mr.
Bright.) I will read on, but you will find that that will
only make the matter worse. The Lords asked, if they
could rejeet the whole, why could not they reject a part of
a bill ? And the answer of the Commons was that the King
might reject the whole of a bill, but that he could not re
ject a portion of it, and that did not take away his negative
voice. I believe that the House of Commons by degrees
deprived the House of Lords of the rights they had anciently
possessed. The Commons stripped them of the right of
altering or amending bills ; but they were told that they
had their remedy, inasmuch as they might negative the
whole of a measure. That is the result of the matter. I
think I can show that must have been the opinion held
by the Chancellor of the Exchequer himself when he wrote
his well-known work on the relations of the Church and
the State. In that work I find the following passage :
" The members of the House of Commons have the exclu-
sive right of passing money resolutions and introducing
and altering money bills. But no such resolution can be
passed—that is to say, no money can be given by the
House of Commons, except on the motion of the Crown, to
which the initiative is reserved ; and no money bill becomes
law unless it receives the assent of the Upper House and
the Crown in its legislative capacity." We are now told
by the right hon. gentleman, as well as by the hon. mem-
ber for Birmingham and the noble lord the Secretary
for Foreign Affairs, that there is no instance in which
the Lords rejected a bill which would repeal so largo an
amount of taxation as that raised by means of the present
paper duty. But I would ask the noble lord, whom we all
know to be a high authority upon constitutional questions,
whether the truth of a principle must not be tested upon
its own merits, and not by the amount of money which
may be involved in its application at any particular time.
I believe this country attaches very little value to that sup-
posed privilege which some hon. members would now en-
force. I like to quote a Whig to a Whig, and I will now
remind the noble lord the Foreign Secretary that Lord
Macaulay, in his valuable essay on Mr. Hallam'sConsti-
tutional History of England, states that " the privileges of
the House of Commons have now become nearly as odious
as the rigours of martial law," and goes on to say that " if
the Commons were to allow the Lords to amend money
bills he does not believe the people would care ono straw
about the matter." So much for the value of the privilege;
and then as to the legality of the claim now put forward by
some hon. gentlemen opposite, what is the argument of the
Chancellor of the Exchequer ? The right hon. gentleman
says that a bill to repeal taxes is to be regarded in a diffe-
rent light from any other. But where is his authority for
that statement ? The Lords upon a former occasion op-
posed a bill dealing with the question of lotteries sent by
them from the Commons ; and will any one contend that
the Lords would not now have a right to reject a bill for
the renewal of lotteries if it should go up to them from this
house? Hon. gentlemen opposite proposed no amendment
upon this occasion. But the Chancellor of the Exchequer
rose in furore to demolish the noble viscount at the head
of the Government ; and certainly if this is to be taken as a
specimen cf the spirit in which the Cabinet conduct their
discussions I cannot congratulate them on forming a happy
family. (A laugh.) The right hon. gentleman says that the
time for action is come—(hear, hear, from a number of
members on the Ministerial side of the house.) But if it is,
why do net you act ? (Cheers and laughter) If you say
that you are anxious to produce an impression on the
people, pardon me for saying that unless you do something
nobody will believe you. (Renewed laughter.) Ryon with-
draw all your amendments in succession the public out
of doors is too discriminating to be deceived by so tran-
sparent a device. I am ready to admit that before the
Chancellor of the Exchequer rose there was a general de-
sire on the part of the house that these resolutions should
be passed unanimously. The nob!e viscount at the head of
the Government had produced that feeling of unanimity
by the good sense which he displayed in his speech; but
the right hon. gentleman, smarting, as I believe, under the
rebuke which he received from the House of Lords, and
under the defeat of his rash and unlucky policy, had intro-
duced into his discussion an element of unexpected bitter-
ness. I am not surprised, however, at any course which he
may pursue. I remember that he denounced the income
tax, and that he afterwards doubled it; that he condemned
the Chinese war, and that he sanctions one at this moment,

consideration upon those who are hereafter to frame the
financial proposals of the country ? (Hear.) Surely it was
for the interest of the House of Lords to give us every en-
couragement to avoid that temptation to which, being under
the influence of popular feeling, wo are naturally exposed,
to choose not the best but the most popular measure. We
did resist that temptation, and what is the lesson the House
of Lords has taught us ? Did it not at once seize the op-
portunity of resisting our proposal, under shelter of the po-
pular feeling. (Hear.) I said this case was capable of
negative as well as of positive illustration ; and I have
shown in the case of the soap duties in 1853, which was in
most respects a parallel, and where not a parallel a still
stronger case, the House of Lords wisely left to
us the responsibility of providing the ways and
means to meet the necessities of the year. I
will show you another instance by travelling a
little further back. In 1839 the budget was presented at
the usual period of the year in which the expenditure and
revenue of the country were as nearly as possible balanced.
At a later period a measure was proposed, which I regard as
one of the happiest and most advantageous measures that
has marked the happy reign of her Majesty Queen Victoria
—I mean the measure for reducing the postage duties to a
uniform rate of a single penny. (Hear.) The Post-office
at that time returned a clear not revenue of £1,400,000 or
£1,500,000 a-year ; and it was perfectly obvious that the
reduction of the rate of postage to ld., whatever might be
its ultimate results, would have the immediate effect of
sweeping away the whole of that net revenue from the
country; and so it proved. Although that beneficial repeal
has been worth five tines over the revenue we lost, yet at
this day, after 21 years, our revenue has not been entirely
replaced. In that year (1839) the House of Lords, almost
for the first time in its history, succeeded in obtaining a
copy of the estimates with the help of a compliant Chan-
cellor of the Exchequer; and much good it did them, as
you will say when you hear the result. That estimate
showed them there was no surplus. In sending up the bill
to the Lords the Commons distinctly acknowledged that it
would create a deficiency in the revenue, and by a special
resolution pledged themselves to provide for that deficiceicy
in the following year. There was therefore no dispute
whatever that this measure would produce a deficiency.
Why, then, did not the House of Lords interfere upon that
occasion ? (Hear, hear.) They passed that bill without
difficulty or dispute, without raising the financial question
at all. (Hear, hear.) And, strangest of all the strange
occurrences of that remarkable year, the man who sent up
to the House of Lords that bill for creating a deficiency in
the revenue of the year, was Mr. Thomas Spring Rice, the
then Chancellor of the Exchequer. (Cheers and laughter.)
The very same gentleman, unless the almanacks deceive
us, who, having since obtained the title of Lord Monteagle,
is reported to have played a leading part in advising the
House of Lords to take upon itself those functions which,
if ever they were to be used at all, ought to have been used
in 1839. (Hear, hear.) I keep to my pledge, and will not
enter into the details of the precedents. If a challenge
proceeds from the other side if it is contended
that in the catalogue before us there are cases analo-
gous to the present, and that the House of Lords have
ever before attempted to exercise the functions of the House
of Commons, we shall have other opportunities of meeting
and contesting these allegations. For the present I content
myself with stating that there is no colour of precedent for
such proceedings. (Hear, hear.) I beg the house to believe
that this is really a matter of great importance. (Hear,
hear.) Since the peace of 1815 £78,000,000 of taxes have
been repealed. All the bills that have repealed that amount
of taxation have been accepted by the House of Lords from
the House of Commons upon the responsibility of the lat-
ter. (Cheers.) And only now when we corns to the 79th
million, has the House of Lords thought fit to interfere,
and establish a new precedent. (Cheers.) For my part, I
cannot but feel that this is a time when men are little apt
and disposed to deal with abstract principles; and those
assertions which our forefathers made of their rights we
now think of little value or consequence compared with ob-
taining a few hundred thousand pounds. (Hear, hear.)
It may be that my views on this subject are little compatible
with the tendencies of the age, but I confess I cannot bring
my mind to take that view. I do regard the whole rights
of the House of Commons as they have been handed down
to us as constituting a sacred inheritance upon which I, for
my part, will never voluntarily permit any intrusion or
plunder to be made. (Cheers.) I think that the very first
of our duties—anterior to the duty of dealing with any le-
gislative measure, and higher and more sacred than awy
such duties, high and sacred though they may be—is to
maintain intact that precious deposit. I concur in every
word of the resolution proposed by my noble friend which
we have in our hands. But I respectfully reserve to myself
the freedom of acting in such a way as shall appear—if any
such way should appear—to offer any hope of success in
giving effect by a practical measure to the principle con-
tained in that resolution. (Loud cheers, chiefly from hon.
members below the gangway.)
Mr. WHITESIDE—I am at a loss to know why the
right hon. the Chancellor of the Exchequer has directed his
attack against members on the Opposition benches instead
of against the members of his own administration. (Cheers.)
I invite the attention of the house to the course which
this debate has taken—(cheers and counter cheers)—
in vindication of those with whom I have the honour
to act, who have been observed upon because they
have not stood up to resist the speech or the motion of the
noble viscount. I am myself as ready to enter into debate
as any hon. gentleman. (Laughter and cheers.) I came
down to the house expecting to find the opposite benches
filled with sincere men, with uncompromising patriots, who
would not be content with mere speeches, but who were
prepared to follow up words with action. What was the first
thing that took place this evening ? The noble lord the
member for Marylebone, a stern asserter of the privileges of
this house, stood up, amid the derision and jeers of this
house, to desire the hon. member for Finsbury to withdraw
his amendment, lest the happy unanimity of the independent
Liberals should be disturbed. And then the hon. gentleman
the member for Finsbury, with his inimitable wit, exposed
the folly and inconsistency of this course, but finding that
he had no support, yielded to the soft eloquence of the noble
lord the member for Marylebone, and gracefully withdrew
his amendment. That was the first scene in the drama.
The noble viscount then rose, and I must do hint the justice
to say that his speech was everythingthat could be desired.
I never heard the noble viscount speak more satisfacto.ily,
and I only regret that his arguments did not make more im-
pression on the mind of his refractory Chancellor of the Ex-
chequer. (Cheers and laughter.) The noble viscount put the
question in a fair, a temperate, and a satisfactory manner
before the house. He spoke as the First Minister of this
country ought to speak—ho spoke in the spirit of the constis
tution. His speech was in favour of peace, and while he as -
sorted the rights of this house he declared with great good
souse and truth that the conduct of the House of Lords for
the last 15 or 20 years proved that they were not actuated by
an unpatriotic spirit—that their conduct nerd not provoke
the conduct of this house—that the precedents in favour of
their interference were too many, though they might not,
perhaps, satisfy in point of logic the mind of a special
pleader. His speech, in fact, was everything that was re-
pugnant, to the speech of the Chancellor of the Exchequer;
sideand yetof t
hheonh.eguesne,tl,e,nltle,nhyodpponi teyioiieirgsiestteudp
iann d a askingt
a attack this
k the
noble viscount? why don't you argue the question ?"
when, in fact, there was nothing to argue about. The
noble viscount unequivocally admitted the right of the
House of Lords to do what they had done. (No, no.) He
made a distinct and emphatic declaration of the right
of the House of Lords, according both to the law and
the constitution; and the exclamations of hon. gentlemen
opposite are of no avail, for they will not alter the truth.
(Cheers.) The noble lord admitted, as he Was bound to do
—unless he were a rabid revolutionist—he admitted the
right of the House of Lords to take the course they did;
6.114 further, that it wan a moderate and wise course, The

Sir-J. SHELLEY thought that if the house stopped at
the resolutions, which were weak and impotent, it would
disappoint the just expectations of persons out of doors.
Mr. STANSFELD said the only fault he found with the
resolutions was that the concluding one did not explicitly
point the moral of the tale, but he objected to the speech of
Lord Palmerston, who, he thought had abandoned the con-
stitutional right of that house. There was no doubt of the
legal technical right of the Lords to refuse their assent to
any bill ; the only question was as to the constitutional
exercise of the right, and he denied their constitutional
right to re2ase their assent to a money bill part of a budget.
The rejection of the Paper Duty Repeal Bill was a claim to
revise the budget, to perpetuate a tax against the assent of
the representatives of the people, and thereby to increase
the supply asked by the Crown., The question was whether
the house would consent to such a claim.

Mr. DISRAELI—I am unwilling that the house should
come to a vote upon this subject without my expressing to
the noble lord the First Minister of the Crown, both on my
own part, and I am sure on the part of hon. gentlemen who
sit on this side of the house, our sense of the patriotic
speech with which he has introduced the resolutions now
under our consideration. (Cheers.) The hon. gentleman
calls upon us not to consider this question in a party spirit ;
and when he adjures us to rise to the " height of this great
argument," and divest ourselves of all party considerations
in its discussion, I am gratified that it falls to me in the first
sentence which I shall presume to utter, to offer to the First
Minister of the Crown, whose general policy I oppose, the
sincere tribute of my adhesion on this occasion. (Cheers.)
When the real privileges of the House of Commons are
assailed or questioned, I can tell the noble lord, if he be
then the leader of this house, that he will not appeal in
vain to us to uphold those privileges, or to support him in
their vindication; as I can with equal sincerity assure him
that if there bo an attempt in the course of the proceedings
of the two Houses of Parliament to raise some artificial
agitation—(cheers)—occasioned, perhaps, by the necessity
of satisfying the wounded vanity or gratifying the distem-
pered ambition of some individual—(loud cheers)—he may
with as great success appeal to us to support him ii the
adoption of that course which we believe to be necessary
to the welfare of the country. (Rear, hear.) The noble
lord has to-night acknowledged--had it not been for
circumstances which have since occurred I should have
said on the part of the Government—that the course taken
by the House of Lords with reference to the bill for the
Repeal of the Paper Duties was one which the state of the
law justified and authorised them to adopt. If the law of
the country justified and authorised such conduct on the
part of the other House of Parliament, there is at once an
end to any question of the priv loges of this house. A privi-
lege that cannot be asserted ceases to be a privilege, and is
only a pretence—(hear, hear)—and those who remember
what occurred only 20 years ag,, when this house attempted
to assort a privilege which was contrary to the law of the
country, will not, I think, with any hope of success, counsel
the house again to adopt a course which was replete with so
much disaster, and so humiliating to the dignity of this
assembly. (Hear, hear.) But the noble lord was not content
with simply acknowledging:that the conduct of the:House of
Lords was justified by law. He as manfully confessed that
it was sanctioned by policy. (Hear.) What, then, is con-
duct justified by law and sanctioned by policy—is that con-
duct which you are compelled to admit is the observance of
the law, and the pursuit of a course which policy approves,
to be made the ground and basis of your calling upon us to
assert that our privileges have been violated, and our due
authority questioned ? (Hear, hear.) If the privileges of
the House of Commons can only be vindicated by opposing
that which law justifies and policy sanctions, I fear that we
shall hardly be able to recommend to our constituents the
character of those privileges, or to indaco them to support
them with the spirit which the hon. member who has just
sat down contemplates. It may be said, " If the conduct of
the House of Lords in this respect be such as the chief of
the Government has thus publicly announced, what neces-
sity is there for the resolutions which we are called upon to
vote to-night?" (Hear, hear.) If, when this misunderstand-
ing was first noticed in the House, some one in authority had
come forward, hid before us the nature of the case, indicated
to us the state of the precedents and those former proceedings
which might illustrate the present position, and recommended
to us the course which the facts and arguments' might have
justified and illustrated, I doubt whether there would
have been any necessity for the house to have come to these
resolutions. I think that if the question had then been de-
bated with sufficient learning and sufficient calmness, we
might perhaps have avoided a state of affairs which all
must admit not to be satisfactory. But when a perplexed
House of Commons, I think rashly and hastily, determined
to appoint a solemn committee to search for precedents,
when you placed upon that committee the most consider-
able members of the house, when they devoted to that pur-
pose all their energies and attention for a considerable
period of time, and when they reported the result of their
investigations, it seemed to Inc impossible that this house
could escape from formally expressing the conclusions to
which that inquiry had led them. Therefore, Sir, I think
it was impossible, after appointing that committee, that re-
solutions for the acceptance of this house should not be laid
on the table. (Hear, hear.) And what are these resolu-
tions ? Under other circumstances I might cavil at some
of the expressions. A word here and there might, I think,
be critically noticed. The composition, which has attracted
the attention of some members, might be dwelt upon in the
spirit of Aristarchus ; but after the speech of the noble lord
at the head of the Government, and after the large view he
has taken of the whole question, it would be quite unbe-
coming on my part to enter upon such verbal trifling.
(Cheers.) There are three resolutions before us, each, I
doubt not, with a distinct purpose. The first is an assertion
of our privileges, copied from ancient precedents in our
journals, and claims the solo right of supply to her Majesty.
That resolution has been criticised by the highest constitu-
tional authorities. Mr. Hallam, himself a high Whig, has
noticed in his " Constitutional History" the very language
we have adopted in our first resolution, and he notices it as
one that cannot be precisely vindicated or proved. That
we have the " sole right of granting aids and supplies to
the Crown"—which is the language, I think, of the origi-
nal resolution, and which is here equivalently expressed—is
an assertion that cannot be maintained by a house which,
when it carries a bill of supply, in that very bill states
that the supply can only be granted with the assent of the
House of Lords. (Hear, hear.) But it would bo unwise
at a moment like the present, when, although our privileges
may really not be assailed, many think from the represen-
tations that have been made that they are endangered, to
make use of language which might be more accurately
precise, but which, to the vulgar ear, might seem to make
a modified claim of privilege compared with that put forth
by our predecessors. Therefore I think, on the whole,
although precisely and critically you could not word for
word vindicate the assertion embodied in the first resolu-
tion, it is proper we should adhere to that old language
which was used on great, criticalr and solemn occasions by
our predecessors, and not seem to bate one single inch of
the ground always taken by this house upon the subject.
In short, the first resolution, as far as the constitutional,
and I would say the classical assertion of our privileges is
concerned, is one with which I cannot in any way find fault.
(Hear) The second resolution is an admission—to my
mind a proper, legal, and constitutional admission—of the
right of the Lords to reject bills of supply; and although
there may be expressions in it which some may feel disposed
to criticise, such as the statement that the exercise of the
right on their part has not been frequent, as if in the nature
of things it could be frequent, aud that on all occasions

control. The noble lord; however, though he was a Minis-f
ter for six years, was never able to fulfil that pledge. It h
been my lot on more than one occasion to call on the nobl
lord to redeem his pledge, but I have called in vain. I d
not impute to the noble lord any negligence in this matter
He yielded to the insuperable difficulties of the case. W
must remember there are not only constitutional Liberal
but commercial Liberals. The constitutional Liberals may
really be anxious to have control over the annual revenue
of the country; but the commercial Liberals, and many of
those who now call most loudly for the vindication of the
privileges of the house on this occasion, exercised such
pressure on the Minister of the day that, for commercial
purposes, the control of the house over its annual taxation
was lost. This, is one of the mysterious modes in which
we are for the future to vindicate our privileges when they
are assailed ; but I ask the commercial Liberals whether
they are prepared to allow the sugar duties, the tea duties,
or the malt duties to become a source of annual taxation.

Mr. STANSFELD said he was a sincere supporter of
the Government measure of reform, but he said his views
went further. lie had not attributed its defeat mainly to
the opposition.

I have no doubt the noble lord and many of his colleagues,
who love commerce well, but who love the Constitution
more—(a laugh)—may be disposed, if the house would en-
courage them, to restore to it its ancient control over the
revenue. But I doubt very much whether the gentlemen
who have spoken so loudly this evening in favour of our
privileges would be prepared to support a Minister who
should propose this important change in the mode of levy-
ing- the taxation of the country. (Hear, hear.) I now
come to the second method of defending our rights sug-
gested by my right: honourable friend, and, I take it
adopted in the resolution—that is, by insisting that the
whole of our financial scheme shall be embodied
in one bill. We do not—at least I for ono, and the Prime
Minister for another—do not question the right of the House
of Lords to reject such a bill; but of course the responsi •
bility of such a step would, under these circumstances, be
greatly enhanced, and the difficulty of disturbing the finan-
cial arrangements of the House of Commons proportionately
increased. (Hear.) For my own part, I have no objection
to such a course. I should have liked, for example, that
that course had been pursued this year. I should have
liked to have the whole scheme of the Chancellor of the
Exchequer in woe bill. I should like to have seen the addi-
_ .

Mi.DISRAELI.—It is not very material to the case.
Well, sir, I venture to hope that I have stated the reasons
which induce myself, and I believe those who are sitting on
this side of the house, to give a cordial support to her Ma-
jesty's Government on this occasion. I think it would have
been just as well if there had been no committee of prece-
dents, and then there would have been no need of resolu-
tions ; but as a committee was appointed they have given
us a report of great value. It is an addition to our library
of great value, and we cannot too highly estimate it. Re-
solutions were the necessary consequence of that report. I
think those resolutions express a temperate and wise course
on the part of this house. If they vindicate the privileges
of this house, though in language which may be criticised
for its precision, it is still language that has been used by
our predecessors on memorable occasions ; and if they as-
sert the rights of this house, where they can be practically
maintained, I think it would be unwise to alter language
the popular interpretation of which is one favourable to the
maintenance and the just privileges of the House of Com-
mons. I think the second resolution admits—and admits
in the clearest terms—distinctly admits—the power of the
House of Lords to reject money bills ; and no other power
have I for one moment claimed for that house. They have
not the power to originate—they have not the power to alter
or amend a money bill ; but they have the power to reject
money bills ; and should that power be withdrawn, then
the constitution of England, of which we hear so much,
would be instantly changed. (Hear, hear.) We have heard
during this session very much as to new principles of taxa-
tion. New principles of taxation have been recommended
which are, to my mind, of very dangerous import—
(hear)—but which, fortunately for the house and the coun-
try, will no longer be submitted to a new parliament elected
by inexperienced constituents. But, if new principles
of taxation came into fashion I could suppose a case of the
House of Commons passing a money bill that would fix a
very high rate of taxation upon the estates of men of the
House of Lords. Are we to contend that the House of
Lords cannot reject a bill which they cannot amend or alter ?
Such bills have passed this house before, and we are now
told that we are to lay it down as our privilege that the
House of Lords is deprived of the last defence for property.
(Hear.) I think that resolutions distinctly acknowledging
the right of the House of Lords to reject a money bill aro
resolutions which we, as a Conservative body, cannot reject
and ought to support ; and the third resolution, though it
may be vague, and from the nature of the subject it is
necessarily vaguely expressed, I see in it only a recurrence
of those constitutional courses as the fiscal subjects which
I think it would well become this house to consider if they
might not adopt. If any proposition of that kind were made
to the house, I should anticipate for it more opposition from
the other side of the house than from this side. I ask the
house whether it is not our duty to cheerfully support the
Minister who has proposed these resolutions, and who
has made the proposition in a spirit equal to the occasion,
and free from all party and petty considerations ? (Cheers.)
If the policy of many hon. gentlemen opposite were pur-
sued the critical influence of the senate on the subject of
the finances would entirely cease, and it would become a
great question whether the absence of such control is in
harmony with the other parts of the constitution, and might
not be a great detriment to the public welfare. It has been
said that the Senate of America has the power of rejecting
money bills, and not only that, it possesses the power of
altering and amending them, and the hon. member for lyr-
=lngham said, " but that is an elective body." A very im-
portant consideration of course. If it be advisable that there
should be some control, wisely modified and fenced about,
as it is, exercised by what we may call the senate of this
country, if it be, as I think, the essence of wisdom that
there should be some check on intemperate and unjust reso-
lutions in matters of taxation, are we to conclude that that
senate should be elective. The hon. gentleman and his
friends, I suppose, are changing the issue, and what we
really have to consider is, if we have a senate, whether it
should be elective. lam in favour of maintaining the here-
ditary legislature of this country. (Cheers.) I would not
entrust the large powers which the Senate of America has
to an elective body. What control the House of Lords have
in matters of finance I wish them to have as an hereditary
body, guarding ourselves against any exclusive and unwise
exercise of this power by the privileges of the House of
Commons—privileges that have been acknowledged for
centuries, and which, whenever they are assailed, we find
ourselves able to uphold and 'vindicate. The test of oar
privileges is, that they can be asserted. The hon. member
for Birmingham will pardon me, for he said the other night
that he had been accused of a wish to Americanise this
country, and now he has explained that what he meant
was, that the senate should be elective. I trust that
that house, by supporting the Government resolutions,
will show that it is prepared to uphold the privileges
not only of this house, but of all the estates of the realm
which the constitution has hitherto acknowledged, and
under which this country has so eminently flourished. (The
right hon. gentleman resumed his seat amid loud and pro-
longed cheering.)
Lord J. Russell and Mr. Bright rose together, and neither
of them seemed inclined to give way.
The SPEAKER declared that Lord J. Russell had pos-
-1 session of the house.

tional id. of income tax set down in the same bill that was
to repeal the duties on paper. (Cheers.) Such a proceeding
would have afforded us, no doubt, an opportunity for deli-
beration very different from the manner in which the finan-
cial measures of the Government were carried in that ma-
happy first month of the present session—(hear, hear)—
which we all now so deeply and bitterly repent. (Cheers.)
Is there any one present who believes that the scheme of
the Minister, if embodied in one comprehensive measure,
would have met with success ? No. (Hear.) Not even in
the frenzy of March, when we were as mad as individuals
sometimes are in that month—as mad as March hares—not
even then would the scheme have been passed. (Cheers
and laughter.) There are the constitutional methods pointed
out in this somewhat mysterious third resolution, which
were copied from the draught report of our right hon.
chairman. There are the two constitutional methods which
afford such relief to the perplexed Liberal party. You want
action—this is the action that awaits you. (A. laugh.) Of
these two courses, one at least must be repugnant to your
great principles, and the other destroys all the schemes of
the Minister whom you particularly support. (Cheers.) I
see nothing to object to in that third resolution, and for an
additional reason. The principles and policy which I strove
to assert during the whole course of the committee are
embodied and expressed in this resolution. I tried with,
I am glad to say, a majority of the committee, to vin-
dicate the just privileges of the House of Commons. I tried
to uphold the constitutional truths which rendered them in-
dependent of the other House of Parliament. (Hear, hear.)
I tried to recal to the attention of the committee that in our
modern practice the House of Commons had, unfortunately,
lost its ancient and due control over the annual taxation of
the country. (Hear.) Well, then, if I find that this third
resolution expresses my views, why am I not at liberty to
support it ? It appears, however, we are not to enjoy this
privilege. The Chancellor of the Exchequer has made a
violent attack upon us because we support the Go-
vernment. (Laughter, and hear.) " It is outrageous,"
said the right hon. gentleman—" What, does a party that
calls itself Conservative presume to support a Government
of which I am a member 1" (Cheers and laughter.) " I
call upon you," exclaimed the Chancellor of the Exche-
quer, " to interfere in this matter, because a gigantic in-
novation has been perpetrated." Now, I listened with
great attention, and with the utmost gratification, to the
mature speech of the head of the Government, which com-
menced these proceedings, and which I accepted as the
wise, calm, and ample declaration of a Cabinet that had
carefully and deliberately considered this important. subject.
(Hear, hear.) I heard from the noble lord that 1 he House
of Lords had in the opinion of the Government not only
acted in a manner by law permitted and justified, but in ac-
cord and consonance with no less than thirty-six precedents.
It seems extraordinary to me that a body that acted in ac•
cordance with the authority of no less than thirty-six pre-
cedents, that that conduct should be described very shortly
after by the colleague of the First Minister as a gigantic in-
novation. But the noble lord did more than this. He made
this most important communication to the house, which I
believe will be a source of great satisfaction and comfort to
the country to-morrow, that it was not the intention of the
Government to attempt to reverse the decision of the House of
Lords respecting the paper duty. But what says the Chan-
cellor of the Exchequer? He says, "I am going to support the
resolutions which in my opinion are utterly unfit and inade-
quate, because I take them as I have taken other things be-
fore, in a non-natural sense, and because, inasmuch as they
are utterly passive, it necessarily ensues that they aro to be
followed by action." Now, sir, I should like to know from
the Chancellor of the Exchequer, or if not from him, net
from some of his colleagues, because it is possible they may
not agree with him, but from some more sympathising
member of the house who may follow in this debate—l
should like to knew of what the action is to consist. What
is the course contemplated, and what are the views to be
accomplished ? Because I myself, though I am entirely ap-
proving of the course which the Government pursued,
although I think the statement of the noble lord was digni-
fied, impartial, and statesmanlike, and equal to the occasion,
and one which will give satisfaction to the country,
still I have that respectful sympathy for hon. gentlemen
opposite which one cannot help feeling for men you are in
the habit of airing with, although you may not share their
opinions and agree with them exactly in the case under our
consideration. I want to know what balm there is for their
tortured feelings. I want to ascertain whether they may not
all this time be labouring under some temporary hallucina-
tion. (Cheers and laughter.) I want to spare them the re-
morse of to-morrow, when, after having summed up the
wonderful experience of this night, they discover that they
have received only a word and not a remedy, and that ac-
tion like the action of Demosthenes thrice repeated, may
mean nothing more than what I believe the correct Greek
version expresses, namely, a skilful gesture. (Cheers
and laughter.) Well, sir, I maintain that the charge of
the Chancellor of the Exchequer is utterly untenable
and has no foundation, I say, with the views which we
entertain, and the entire approval that we give to the course
of the noble lord, it was not our duty t• oppose the resolu-
tion which we wish to support. Leaving, then, the right
hon. gentleman, I think answeredsatisfactorily upon that
point, let me for a moment contemplate the position of
those whom I suppose I may still, if only in courtesy., call,

Mr. BIUGIIT attempted to make some observation, but
was called to order.

Lord J. RUSSELL said—l must express my gratitude
for the speech that the right hon, gentleman has, ust made
in support of the resolutions of my noble friend, and of the
speech of my noble friend ; but while I express nIY grab"
tude, I must at the same time vindicate my noble friend's
resolutions, and also his speech from the interpretation
that has been placed upon them. (Hear, hear.) The right
hon, gentleman is in a position of considerable difficulty,
no doubt. lie is the leader of a great number of gentlemen
who are proud of being members of this house. He can
therefore hardly abandon any of the ancient rights and
privileges of this house ; and the right hon. gentleman on
the other hand can hardly abandon Lord Derby and cen-
sure what he has done. (Question and oerder.) The con-
sequence is, that the house has heard the speech of the
right hon. gentleman, and I must claim to be allowed to
reply to him. The right hon. gentleman has placed an
interpretation on the speech of my noble friend that his
words do not bear. He said that my noble friend had ad-
mitted that the act of the House of Lords in rejecting the

REFRESHMENT HOUSES AND WINE
LICENCES (SCOTLAND) BILL.
The CHANCELLOR of the EXCIIEQUER postponed
the further discussion of the measure till next Monday.
The Heritable Securities (Scotland) Bill was read a
second time.
The Burial Grounds (Ireland) Act Amendment Bill
passed through committee.
The Felony and Misdemeanor Bill passed
mi
The
tteeroßleachingfo and Dyeing Works passed through
committee. o'clock.
The house adjourned at a quarter past two through corn-