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

THE SUN, LONDON FRIDAY EVENING, JULY

China, the House of Lords entirely declined to meddle with
a matter-ih-reg—Wd 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 means 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
3vould 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 be ready to interfere at
the proper moment. .If it chance that in considering the
claims of various to 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 aro 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 for the Government, and
in the second place for the House of Commons, was whether
the paper duties should be repealed, or whether a reduction
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
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, he
did not vote against it. Now, I doubt very 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 device c from ihe course
it had pursued without interruption for nearly 200 years.
(Hear.) I want to know what is to be the influence of this

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, we 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 net 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 times 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 deficiency
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 aro 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 come 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 littlecompatible
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 any
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 priuCiple con-
tained in that resolution. (fiend 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 wore
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 assertor of the privileges of
this house, stooa 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 him 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—he spoke in the spirit of the consti-
tution. His speech was in favour of peace, and while he as-
sorted the rights of this house he declared with great good
sense and truth that the conduct of the House of Lords for
the last.ls or 20 years proved that they were not actuated by
an unpatriotic spirit—that their conduct need 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
ppluegandoennt
toHis
n
and yet hon. gentlemen opposite persisted in asking this
the speech,sp e c fact,tl ie Cwhaasn ce evlel royr t ohlf hg e that
c hweaqsu er re -;
side of the house, " Why don't you get up and attack 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
—lllllll4 'he were a rabid- revolutionist—he admitted the
right of the House of Lords to take the course they did;
• al4. AlMort that it waa a moderate 43%4 WWI MIMI The

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 lam 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 lead 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 attack 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 ?—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 have
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-

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' 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 we 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 better hands than those of the
Chancellor of the Exchequer. (Hear, hear.) He asks how
it has happened that the Lords so seldom exercised the
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 kingdoni 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 reject 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 moneybill 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's Consti-
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 one 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 ? lion. 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
ds
family.pi
seccui specimen
(nA fI
hlaue eag
nhs
np.
)0i r it
Then
ho inengrrighta which
tulahtoe
nt
the
hon. gentleman
eCanint
obl
eni Cabinet
forming
so
iannydgsuatc
hthaatthcir
p.
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 not 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.) If you with-
draw all your amendments in succession the public out
of doors is too discriminating to be deceived by so tran-
sparent 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 noble 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 pursne. I remember that he denounced the income
tax, and that he afterwards doubled it ; that he condemned
the QhhieNt war, and that laesnctions one M this moment,

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 hits nothing to
do with the matter. The wise men who framed the Ameri-
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 con-
ference with 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
aro men who seek to strip the House of Lords of a power
they have hitherto exercised, let them reduce their inten-
tions to action, and let us have a frank discussion—a final

I discussion, whether wo 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.
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 tho resolutions he 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 C=-
12101113.

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-
slitutional 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 refase 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 ho 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 be 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 in the
adoption of that course which we believe to be necessary
to the welfare of the country. (Hear, 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 ago, when this house attempted
to assert 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 tho 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 oily 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 indace them to support
them with the spirit which the hon. member who has just
sat down contemplates. It may bo 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 HMSO, 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 thick 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 me 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 sole 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 be 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, critical, and solemn occasions by
OUT 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, acid 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 thine it could be frequent, and that on all occasions

6, 1860.

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
ac 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 mar-
row of the third resolution. We threw them out in the
committee generally upon the ground that our expression
of opinion should sot be admitted into our report, and those
paragraphs expressed an opinion. There were',some members
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

two paragraphs of the privileges of this house was of too de-
sponding a character, these as I thought at the time unhappy
paragraphs of the chairman were 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, 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 those privileges 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
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 Heuse 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 ho acknowledged the importance and absolute necessity
of the House of Commons exercising a due and efficient con-
trol over the annual taxation of the country, though he
thought there were peculiar reasons—and I admit them—in
the state of the sugar trade at that moment—it was a moment
when great changes were taking place in our colonies, and
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
pledge, that he would substitute for that branch of taxation
annual taxes to an equivalent amount over which the House
of Commons should exercise its accustomed and beneficial
control. The noble lord, however, though he was a Minis-
ter for six years, was never able to fulfil that pledge. It has
been my lot on more than one occasion to call on the noble
lord to redeem his pledge, but I have called in vain. Ido
not impute to the noble lord any negligence in this matter.
He yielded to the insuperable difficulties of the case. We
must remember there are not only constitutional Liberals
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 a
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.

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 one, 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 there 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 one bill. I should like to have seen the addi-
tional 2d. of income tax set down in the same bill that was
to repeal the duties on paper. (Cheers.) Such a prqceeding
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 un-
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, end 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 tbem 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 I" (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 the 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 bs, 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? Ho 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 are 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,
end 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 fur their
tortured feelings. I want to ascertain whether they inay not
all this time be labouring under some temporary hallucit,a-
don. (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 answeredsatiseactorily upon that
point, let me for a moment contemplate the position of
those whom I suppose I may still, if only in courtesy, calli

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 tale 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 are 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, therefore they were going to vote for the resolutions.
(Cheers and laughter.) That does appear to me to be 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-
joy° 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 than three 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 stars—(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
G-reek sages and Greek poets, and they will find how incon-
sistent is the course pursued by hon. gentlemen opposite.
But that attack never, in my mind, 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 by the Opposition,
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.

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

Mr‘.DISRAELL—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 hare 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 tkat 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 are
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 iufluenc,e 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 Bir-
mingham said. " but that is an elective bed):." 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-
session of the house.

Mr. BRIGHT 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 just made
in support of the resolutions of my noble friend, and of the
speech of my noble friend ; but while I express my grati-
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, beer.) The right
hen. gentleman is in a position of considerable difficulty,
no doubt. He 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 order.) The con-
sequencePeed]. of the
gentleman, and I must claim to be allowed to
is, that the house has heard the s
right hon.
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