The Sun.
London, England, 1860-07-18 00:00:00

this house to adopt a practical measure for the vindication
of its right and privileges. The noble lord having apologised
for introducing a subject of so much importance at so late

an hour (half-past 11) promised to detain the house but a
very short time. (Hear, hear.) Whatever might be thought
of the subject within, there was a strong feeling of indigna-
tion on the subject out of doors. (Derisive cheers.) He
could point in support of his statement to numerous meet-
ings held iu different parts of the country praying the house
to take some steps to vindicate its privileges ; and he
challenged hon. gentlemen opposite who cheered to
mention a single one at which it had been held that the
Lords were right. Petitions in favour of the course indi-

cated in his motion had been presented with at least a
hundred thousand signatures ; and there had been a meet-

ing of delegates, attended by deputies from Manchester,
Liverpool, Birmingham, Glasgow, Warrington, Bristol,
Norwich, Newcastle- on-Tybe, Oxford, and some 40 others

of the principal towns in the kingdom. And what did
these gentlemen say ? In their first resolution they affirmed
that the house would be degraded if it gave its assent to the

base policy of inaction recommended by Lord Palmerston

and that such a course would be an act of treason to the
constitution. They further stated that Ito Government
which followed such a course would be worthy of the sup-

port of the Liberal party ; and they said that it was the
duty of the Ministers, if necessary, to dissolve Parliament,
and appeal to the country. (Opposition cheers.) Next they

returned their thanks to the Right Hon. W. E. Gladstone
(derisive cheers)—for his noble defence of the constitu-
tion—(loud laughter)—and they relied with confidence
upon his promise to do everything in his power to secure
the rights of the House of Commons. (Renewed laughter.)
Such was the opinion of these gentlemen, and as such it
was entitled to respect. (Hear.) Then there had been the
election for Brighton. (Loud laughter.) If all these things
were not a sufficient excuse for his conduct in bringing for-
ward the motion, he might appeal with confidence to the
language, in the house itself, of the Chancellor of the Ex-
chequer and the Foreign Secretary, and he felt warranted
in saying that whatever might be the fate of his resolution,
it would receive the sanction and support of a largo majo-
rity of the people out of doors. (Hear.) With these pre-
liminary remarks he would now come directly to the point.
(Hear.) There were two propositions which he proposed
to favour if he could. (Laughter.) The first was, that the
rejection of the Paper Duties Bill was an encroachment
upon the rights and privileges of the House of Commons ;
and the second, that it was the duty of the house to adopt
some practical measure to vindicate those rights. As to
the first point, he would not detain the house by reopen-
ing the question of precedents, but he would briefly detail
the steps that had been taken. They had first of all had a
committee of the first men in the house to examine prece-
dents. Upon that a motion was made by the First Lord
of the Treasury. Upon that occasion the noble lord pro-
posed three resolutions, which were adopted unanimously
by the house. He (Lord Fermoy) was one of those who
had taken steps that they should be carried unanimously,
and he did not regret having taken those steps. (Hear.)
These resolutions were taken upon the examination of the
precedents. Of these he would take the first and third
under consideration. The first resolution was to the fol-
lowing effect :—" That the right of granting aids and sup -
plies to the Crown is in the hands of the Commons alone,
and the limitation of all such grants as to the matter,
manner, measure, and time is only in them." Now
what, he would ask, was the result of the budget of
the Chancellor of the Exchequer? In that budget he
introduced principles, two of which it was only neces-
sary to refer at present. One was the repeal of the
paper duties, the other was an addition to the income-tax.
They assented in that house to the repeal of the paper
duties—they voted an additional Id. to the income tax.
(Hear, hear.) In that way they sent the budget to the
other house of Parliament. What was the effect ? Simply
this, that the right hon. gentleman and that house took off
from the shoulders of the consumers of paper £1,250,000,
and placed it on the shoulders of those who paid the in-
come tax. The house adopted that on this ground :—they
repealed the paper duties because they considered them an
impediment to education and a tax upon knowledge. They
sent the bill to the other house, and there the first bill
for the payment of the additional penny was adopted ; but
the bill which relieved the consumers of paper of £1,250,000
was rejected. That was a direct infringement of the rights
and privileges of that house, as laid down in the first reso-
lution ; because, how could it be said that in the Commons
alone was the limitation of all grants as to matter, manner,
measure, and time, when as to the matter, manner, and
time the Lords had interfered and altered their financial
arrangements relating to the taxation of the country I
(Hear.) There was another thing which ought not to be
passed over, namely, that in the proposal of the Commons
as dealing with taxation and finance, they not only shifted
a burden, but they altered the character and form of that
taxation, because, whereas the excise duty was a permanent
tax, the income tax was a variable tax. (Hear.) They altered
the financial proposal not only as to matter and manner, but
also as to time. This act, he said, without troubling
the house with precedents, had completely overset and
invaded their privileges and their rights as laid down in this
resolution which had been passed unanimously within the
la©t fortnight. (Hear.) Tf that w.re true. the next ques-
tion was, what remedy did he propose ? (Hear, hear.j tie
did net shrink from giving the best answer he could to that
question. But, before he did so, he must be allowed to re-
peat what he said last night—namely, that considerable,
though not insuperable, difficulty had arisen from the man-
ner in which the Chancellor of the Exchequer had, since
the matter had been discussed in the Lords, dealt with this
question. (Opposition cheers.) Now, it was quite clear
that if this rejection of the Paper Duties Bill was an ag-
gression, the only and best way to redress that was to send
them back the bill again. (Hear, hear.) The third resolu-
tion, however, pointed out clearly the proper manner of
doing this. The t'aird resolution was to the following
ef-
fect : " That in order to guard against the due exercise of
this power by the Lords, and to secure to the Commons pro-
per control over taxation and supply, the house has power
to remit taxation and frame bills of supply, that the matter,
manner, measure, and time of so doing may be preserved
inviolate." The meaning was this, that the Lords could not
interfere with any bill for the repeal of the paper duties.
(Hear, hear.) He (Lord Fermoy) might be unfortunately
suspected of being disposed to propose strong measures on
this question. But speaking for himself only, as his reso •
lution bound nobody, it was this. Theyknew by experience,
and in saying that he would add that the Lords were not
always in the right—it had been usual when the two houses
differed, if that house had adopted a line, and the Lords had
refused to do so, to give to the Lords a locus pcenitentio, and
to send the bill back again. He thought one of the best fea-
tures of the way in which the Lords had rejected this bill was
their belief that the feeling of the country was with them.
(Opposition cheers.) Now suppose the House of
Commons could show that after full and free dis-
cussion of this question, both in the house and
out of it, the feeling of the country was against the
Lords—not rejecting this particular tax, but dealing with
the rights and privileges of that house—then he thought
that sending back the tax pure and simple was the best
mode of dealing with the question. (Hear, hear.) That
was the course which was adopted with regard to the Re-
form Bill, the Roman Catholic Relief Bill, and the Jew Bill.
That would be a consistent course, and one which he should
be disposed to adopt. But he was told that the Lords
would probably reject the bill again. Well, then would be
the time to embody the repeal of the tax in some money bill
which the Lords could not reject. It was not, however, his
business to point out to her Majesty's Government what
they ought to do. If his (Lord Fermoy's) resolution were
carried, the proper persons to carry it, out would be her
Majesty's Government. (Hear, hear.) Upon their shoulders
was the responsibility. There was one reason why it was
necessary to take some step and some action on this sub-
ject, because it wag manifest that, unless something were
now done, these twe resolutions would be good for nothing
as a record of the rights and privileges of the Commons,
as they would be perfectly useless as regarded the present
question unless some action were taken. And now he hoped
he should have the support of the Chancellor of the Ex-
chequer to his resolution—(hear, hear)—because the right
hon. gentleman had the happy gift of speaking forcibly
and clearly, and if anybody had spoken out clearly and
boldly on this subject it was the Chancellor of the Ex-
chequer. In words to which he (Lord Fermoy) could not
refer, the Chancellor of the Exchequer said it was the duty
of the house to take action, and he went so far as to ask
under what form of constitution we were living, if the house
were to submit to this proceeding on the part of the House
of Lords. It was of the utmost importance that they
should take action on the question, because this very act
would be a precedent against them. The report of the
committee recognised this as one of the very bills which
the Lords had rejected—(hear, hear)—and no doubt unless
they took action, restored their position, and placed them-
selves where they were before, this would be pointed to
hereafter as a precedent, because it would be said that the
Commons admitted by their three resolutions that this was
an act of aggression; they did not resent it, therefore let it
be taken as a precedent against them. He had been told
that the line he was taking was not a polite one. That was
unfortunate, but he (Lord Fermoy) was not to blame for
that. What he proposed was a plain and straightforward
way of dealing with the question. He believed that in this,
as in other questions, the best policy was honesty—(hear,
hear)—and if he were not successful this session it was the
duty of those who cherished and loved the rights of the pee•
pie to take the true line for preserving their privileges and
rights. The responsibility jested with those who opposed
him, because they could command a majority in the house,
and if the it was rendered so by their
pusillanimity. Nothing a
ingb,,a:l one,
asso
csrerrtial to the stability of
policy
our institutions, as that our public men should keep faith
with the country. (Hear, hear.) Were her Majesty's Ge-
vernment satisfied with the present state of things ? lie
asked them whether, looking back at the occurrences of the
last•month cr two, beginning with this aggression of the
Lords down to the passing of these three resolutions, wee°
they satisfied that the house was in as good a position as it
was before the rejection of this bill by the House of Lords ?
The resolutions of Lord Palmerston did nothing to redress
their position. They were carried by a unanimous vote, in
which he concurred with pleasure ; but they ought to take
action. (Cheers.) Out of doors, the public were every
day turning their attention more and more to the subject.
They felt that the rights and privileges of that house weep
identical with their own. An aggression was now made by