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

Paper Duty Bill was not only justified by the law but by
policy. My noble friend's case is an example v.. 1 the danger
of candour exercised towards an adversary. My n,.lble friend
said that technically they could not say that the Lort,lB were
wrong in rejecting the bill, for you could not ask them tti say
" content" or " not content" to a bill without allowing theft
to say what they pleased. (Hear, hear.) My noble friend
made that admission. But with regard to the policy, my
noble friend said that he did not believe that the majority
of the Lords had defeated that bill because they wished to
have a general power over finances, but that they conceived
themselves in this particular case justified in policy. (Hear,
hear.) That was giving to them the utmost credit for their
motives—(hear, hear)—but itwas very different from saying
that policy justified the course they had taken. The right
hon. gentleman takes advantage of this statement and con-
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 of precedents.
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, whodid 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 whole 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 ti 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 he unwise to state in detail what
those means are. Some gentlemen may be of opinion that
the roost 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 halve 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 Hem 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 seeure. (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
.P 1,11:
rest taxation. I believe that the proposed abolition of the
paper duty was conceived in the general spirit of our recent_,
financial policy, and that if it had passed into law it would
have been productive of the same happy
The Lords cannot have rejected the bill on
at
ad °at the time
general deficiency in the revenue,
they h ount of either
no means of knowing what was to be the But they may
un? of any
the estimates or the supplies for the yea
financeuoth at they desired sir
jealousye d to
have given their vote in this sense,
which we have
put a stop to that wise system of
ruenhusoutcheeests.e,liaenvdedtothdea-t
cf°larrne' athnaytyfoearrtshefoflul
ion shall continue
to be
the great
h If that was the upon
Landed _ intention
taxed at the fullest amount, while the national charge
with
landed property is dimani i
touwreed industry 6°
of the Lords it forms
:mild"
of
coandsduimtiopnt al
fof this house of the power which they
on the part
present resolutions state moderately
urn*ghts. The right hon. gentleman
says that the speech dignified of my noble friend was impartial,
buthav ofirmuselyd. what
the are
statesmanlike, and gmfied ; and I believe that it is en-
titled to that praise, but it 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
a security against the danger of its recurrence ; but the mo-
tion does not enter into any empty defiance of the House of
Lords. I think that however indiscreet may have been the
conduct of the House of Lords 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
cndangi r the authority of that house as one great branch
of our national legislature. (Cheers.)
On the motion of Mr. Dimly Seymour, the debate was
adjourned to this day.
The Leith Harbour and Docks bill passed through com-
mittee.

REFRESHMENT HOUSES AND WINE
LICENCES (SCOTLAND) BILL.
The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER 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 through com-
miThe ttee
Bproleac forma.hing and Dyeing Works Bill passed through
committee.
The house adjourned at a quarter past two o'clock.