The Sun.
London, England, 1860-05-26 00:00:00

the real conse luences of the course we are taking. I presume
that the noble lord at the head of Government and his col-
leagues, who have a peculiar interest in the matter before us,
do consider it as a question of some moment, a Al I believe
the more the question is discussed the more t << house will
be of the same opinion. I agree with the hon. member for
Finsbury in what he said with regard to th^ pinion grow-
ing up in the country on this subject. (U ar.) Let hon.
gentlemen bear in mind that never in t lifetime of the
oldest members of this house, or hardly in that of their
fathers, has any great question arisen as to what might be

termed the rights of the people, or the rights of their repre-
sentatives, in this house. Generally speaking, men have
assumed that certain things are irrevocably fixed, as for ex-
ample that men may travel in this country without passports,

or that a man's house cannot be broken into without a war-

rant, or, if apprehended, he must be brought before a judge
or a magistrate to determine on the case. These are things
fixed and unquestioned ; men do not ask how they came to be

fixed ; they take them as they take their daily bread or their
night's sleep—as things which are natural and unchangeable
in their condition. So it is in regard to questions of finance.

They have understood,withoutbeing able to give chapter and
verse for it, that the Chancellor of the Exchequer as a mem-
ber of the Government is chosen by the Crown and has the
confidence of Parliament specially for the purpose of
arranging the finances of the country for the year ;
and they have always seen that when the Chan-
cellor of the Exchequer has brought his scheme
before Parliament, and that scheme has received
the assent of the House of Commons, it has invariably be-
come law. (Hear, hear.) Now, having seen that, and never
having seen anything else, it is not to be wondered that the
great bulk of the people of this country had not instantly
discovered, the very first day the report of the division in
the House of Lords went out, that there had been some in-
fraction of the constitution, and an infraction of the liberty
of this house, to levy taxes as the representatives of the
people. And when they had in connexion with this unfor-
tunate affair the fact of the press—particularly of the press
of London—more especially that portion of it which was the
most ancient and the highest in price, and which has not
yet undergone that revolution which is approaching the
press of London—that press of London which, I will not
say is actuated by base motives, but by the alarms which
we can all understa❑d, has attempted to cover the disaster
which it has been sought to inflict on this house and the
country, and endeavoured to misrepresent the whole state
of the question—when you take this into consideration, we
may easily understand how it is that in three or four days
there has been no expression of public opinion on the sub-
ject throughout the length and breadth of the United King-
dom. But judging from what I see in the provincial press
and in private letters respecting what is taking place in
London now and in some of the largest towns in the king-
dom, I am perfectly satisfied that in a few days there will
be a wide and universal discontent at the course which has
been taken. (Hear.) In considering this question I have not
at heart the slightest regard to the particular tax which it
was proposed to repeal. If it had been a proposal to levy an
additional tax of the excise duty on paper, and it had gone up
to the House of Lords with the assent of this house, and
it had been rejected as this bill has been, I believe I
should have been one of those who would have insisted with
all those with whom I sit in this house, to protest against
the interference of the other house of Parliament ; and
though I confess I have for many years felt a warm and
growing interest in the abolition of the paper duty, since
that division has taken place that particular question has
fallen into insignificance in my sight compared with the far
greater question which the House of Lords has opened to
the consideration of Parliament and the country. Passing
from these observations, which may be considered general,
and coming to the point strictly before us, I am willing to
admit that a great deal may be said as to the ordinary course
of proceeding, and to the mode proposed to be taken by the
noble lord at the head of the Government. The noble lord
has:proposed a committee, and if he had excluded my name
from it, I say it would be impossible to select 18 names in
the house mere capable of representing the solid judgment
of the house in any matter that might be referred to them.
At the same time there is, I think, some force in what has
been said by the hon. member for Southampton (Mr. Digby
Seymour), and that a name or two more might have been
chosen from this quarter of the house. But lam satisfied
that from whatever quarter of the house those names might
be selected, so far as making an accurate search for prece •
dents and making an honest report to the house—that there
are no 19 members of this house who might not be trusted
to do what is right and just in this important matter. But
what I complain of is the vagueness of the terms of the re-
ference under which the committee will have to act ; and I
think the noble lord lays himself open—l will not say to
suspicion, for I am not anxious to cultivate such a feeling—
but to some doubt of the earnestness of all concerned when
he proposed that the committee should search and report as
to a particular description of bills with regard to the action
of imposing or repealing taxes. When I read those words
this morning, it occurred to me that I was very unlucky
in being nominated a member of this committee, for I con-
sidered we should have to propose not a report but a volume
to the house. If I had had the drawing up of the resolution
it should have been more effectual and more strictly to the
point before the house. In a wide order of reference like
this, every gentleman must feel that the real pith and
point of this question may be lost sight of. (Hear, hear.)
What we have to inquire into is this. Wo find that the
House of Lords has increased the taxation of the country
during the present financial year without the consent of the
House of Commons. Now that is a grievance—if there be
a grievance—of which this house ought to complain ; and
as this is not a question of this Government, or of this ses-
sion, or of that opposition, but a question of years—it may
be of generations, or it may be of centuries, in England—l
hope I may appeal to hon. gentlemen opposite to discuss
and consider it, not as one that appeals to any party objects,
but one to which they would direct their attention with
calmness as one of the gravest questions that can come be-
fore a national legislature, The noble lord states in his
resolution that the committee are to report upon the prac-
tice of each house with regard to the several descriptions
of bills for imposing and repealing taxes. Now, there are
two descriptions of bills which some people imagine are
strictly one, but which are very distinct. These are bills
which have been passed in former times for the protection
or regulation of any particular trade or interest ; and these
bills have in them taxes or imposts of one kind or another,
but not for purposes of revenue, but for the protection or
regulation of some particular trade or industry. Now that
is what may be called in a subordinate sense a money bill ;
and there are some bills of that kind which in some cases
have been altered, or even rejected, by the other House of
Parliament. But then there comes that description of bill
in which this one now before us must be included—namely,
one for revenue purposes solely connected with the ways
and means for the service of the Crown. Now, if I could
have advised with regard to the motion for this committee,
the reference would have been of a more distinct character;
because I would have asked the committee to ascertain
whether the House of Lords had in recent periods, or since
the Revolution, or even further back than that, refused to
give effect to any bill passed by the House of Commons
for the repeal of a tax which was no longer deemed
necessary for the service of the crown, or for which a sub-
stitute had been provided. (Hear, hear.) I am told that
in a great speech upon this question it was stated that no
substitute had been provided ; and I read the other day in
one of the newspapers, that in a house in St. James's-
square, a member of the other House of Parliament and of
dominant influence in that house, in discussing this ques-
tion with a deputation which had waited upon him, gave
them to understand that he never so much as heard that
there had been a substitute provided by the House of Com-
mons for this tax. I cannot conceive anything more un-
fortunate than that the fortunes of the country should have
been in the hands of a man who was so little observant of
what was passing in this house, and who knew so little of
what had been done even by the party of which he was
himself the acknowledged leader. The hon. member for
Somersetshire (Sir W. Miles) must be astonished that his
patriotically intended but mistaken efforts in
_this house
were so little recognised by his leaders. He moved this
resolution :—" That, as it appears that the repeal of the
duty on paper will necessitate the addition of one penny in
the pound upon the property and income tax, it is the opi-
nion of this house that such repeal is, under such circum-
stances, inexpedient." The whole discussion of the house
during one long night, so far as I can recollect from the
speeches delivered upon the other side, went upon the ques-
tion, not that the paper duty was a good duty—because all
admitted that it ought to be repealed, and nobody has been
more enthusiastic in the expression of that opinion until
very recently than the right hon. member for Bucks, and
all through than the right hon. member for Hertfordshire
—but because it was said we would prefer, for a time at any
rate, the continuance of this bad tax rather than we would
add ld. to the income tax—a tax so grievously oppressive
upon persons in the receipt of incomes under £2OO or £3OO
a year. That was the argument of every speaker on the
other side of the house. It was the precise point upon
which the house went to a division, and when there were
more than 410 present, the house decided by a majority of 53
that the paper duties should be abolished, and that a penny
should be added to the income tax as a substitute. That
being so, let us not be told that noble lords elsewhere wore
in entire ignorance that the matter has ever been discussed,
or that the House of Commons have provided no substitute.
(Hear, hear.) Sir, I think the question which ought to be
put to the committee is this :—" Has the House of Lords
refused to give effect within recent times to any bill passed
by the House of Commons for the repeal of a tax no longer
deemed necessary for the service of the crown, and for which
a substitute has been provided ?" I object to the order of
reference upon that ground, and I think that the noble lord
has not done justice to himself, or to the Cabinet of which
he is the head, or to this house, which has so strong a claim
upon him, or to the country, which has so-often maintained
him in power, by not taking a more decided line upon this
great question. (Hear, hear.) lam of opinion that the
noble lord is taking a course which is not only perilous to
the house, but may prove fatal to the administration of
which he is the chief. lie knows that when Parliament
assembled at the beginning of the session there was only a
nominal majority in his favour. It was only by 13 votes
that the noble lord was placed in his present position. And
lam satisfied that he can retain that position no longer
has. he retains the confidence of all those on this side of the
h°"e by whose votesheretofore ho has been supported, and ,