The Sun.
London, England, 1860-05-22 00:00:00

there is an end at least of all the charges of our seeking to
interfere with the privileges of the House of Commons. I
must say, for one, though it may be presumptuous in me to
use the expresWon, that the members of this house are as
little minded to injure the privileges of the House of Corn-
monr as they are unwilling to abandon their own. (Hear,
hear.) In both cases I believe that the privileges of Parlia-
ment form an essential part of the constitution of the coma.
try. Like the rest of the constitution, those privileges
have grown by degrees; and I agree with the President of
the Council that it is to comparatively recent times, after
our constitution passed through the throes of revolution,
that we must really refer far guidance upon this question,
and not to times long antecedent. Those who are but slightly
acquinted with the Parliamentary history of England must
know that in earlier times the Lords exercised a very dis-
tinct and separate power with respect to money bills and
taxation. But it is unnecessary to go back to remote history.
We may more safely refer to a period when our constitu-
tion was matured, and if we do so we shall find that in this
essential matter the right of the House of Lords has never
yet been brought into question. This part of the argument
on the other side has been so conclusively swept away by•
my noble and learned friend that it would be unbecoming
in me to advert to it at any length. In addition, however,
to what has fallen from him—not in corroboration, because
no corroboration of mine is needed—l may point out one or
two instances in which this matter has not been left in
doubt, but has been decided after solemn deliberation.
Many of these instances occurred during the existence of
strong Governments, exercising, especially in this house, a
strong influence. On one of these occasions the question
was adjudicated upon after the Lords had been summoned.
The house then pronounced a, unanimous decision on the
subject ; the decision was communicated to the House of
Commons, and from that time to the present, there is no
instance of cavil, of dispute, or of protest en the part of the
House of Commons. One of the first of these instances
occurred in 1758 upon a bill to discontinue for a limited
time the duties payable on tallow imported from Ireland.
A motion was made for the postponement of the measure
for two months, and the bill was lost. Y9ur lordships will
see that the same principle was involved, whether the sus-
pension was for two months or for any other period of time.
The bill was thrown out by this house, and no objection was
raised by the Commons. I have heard a distinction made
between the action of the Lords in respect of Excise and of
Customs. Now here is a ease of an Excise tax. In 1816 a
bill came before the Lords "to repeal the duties of excise
on stone bottles, and to impose other duties in lieu thereof."
A Motion that it be read a second time that day six months
was made and carried, and the House of Commons made no
complaint. As an officer of the other house, I mean Mr.
May, is stated to have expressed an opinion'to the contrary
of that which I am advancing, I wish to read a passage
from his very able text book on the law and practice of
Parliament. After alluding to the legal right of the
House of Commons to originate taxation, and to the usage
of Parliament which precludes us from amending a money
bill, he quotes the resolution to which my noble and
learned friend adverted, which, while it affirms the
right of the Commons to originate money bills and
send them here, clearly reserves to the House of Lords
the fullest power of rejecting them. Mr. May says :
—" The functions of the House of Lords in matters
of supply and taxation are thus reduced to a single
assent or negative." (Hear.) And again :—" The Crown
demands money, the Commons grant it, the Lords assent
to the grant." But I wish your lordships to consider that,
by law and Parliamentary usage, the rights of the House
of Commons are not merely limited to the origination, the
framing, and the passing of money bills. Another import-
ant right which they exclusively possess is the appropriae
tion of the sums so raised. We have nothing to say to the
votes of supply and to the framing of the Appropriation
Act. We cannot alter a single grant which appears Many
one of those Acts of Parliament; but with regard to one and
all of them we have full and entire power to deal with them
as a whole, and to adopt or reject them. Now, when it is
said " reject this bill, and you create a sum of £1,400,000 in
addition to the supplies which have been already voted," I
wish to point out that not one farthing of this sum can be
issued or applied to the public service, except upon a legis-
lative authority derived from the House of Commons, ori-
ginating with them, one which it is peculiarly their func-
tion to frame, and in which we are not entitled to make the
slightest alteration. I said just now that a sum of £1,400,009
was affected by this h ill. But, in truth, the amount re-
specting which you are called upon to decide by your vote
to-night is not £1,400,000; it is a perpetual annuity to that
extent. (Hear.) If you adopt the suggestion of the House
of Commons, you will part with a sum of £36,000,000 ster-
ling, that being the capitalised value of the annuity which
you are now called upon by the other house;to put an end to.
Let me again remind your lordships that nothing can be paid
out of the Consolidated Fund except by a vote of Parliament,
and when we are accused of wishing to diminish the power
of the House of Combons, it should be recollected that not
one single farthing of that sum can be appropriated except
by a Bill which originates with the House of Commons. It
has been already intimated that a desire has been expressed
on the part of some to diminish the security now afforded by
certain charges being placed on the Consolidated Fund, and
it has even been suggested that if it could be contrived to
make the taxation of this country generally distasteful
and abhorrent to the community, they would then cut
down the establishments for the purpose of getting rid of
the taxation. This has been suggested in quarters fully
aware, I should have thought, of the dangers of such a
doctrine, for every step taken in the way of diminishing the
security now created for the payment of charges on the
Consolidated Fund strikes eminently at the whole credit of
this country. With respect to the allegation that is now
proposed to reimpose the paper duty, I would observe that it
is not your lordships' vote that reimposes that duty, sup •
posing you should reject the present bill ; for that sum of
£1,400,000 rests not on your act but on the law of the land,
on the right of the Queen, Lords, and Commons to grant the
sum, and the grant of the sum cannot be repealed except by
the sanction of Parliament. But in this matter, as the noble
and learned lord reminded the house, we are charged in
rather unusual language with sharp practice, for it is said
we have accepted the vote of £1,000,000 from the income •
tax, in the first place, and now we refuse to remit the paper
duty. With regard to the Income-tax Bill, it willbe remem-
bered that when it was passing through the third
reading in this house, I desire.' some further delay, but the
Government &daring that public inconvenience would re-
sult from the postponement of the measure, I abstained
from insisting on its postponement, upon the distinct un-
derstanding that we should not be prejudiced in the discus-
sion of the Paper Duty Bill by the fact of having passed
the Income-tax Bill without dismission. (Hear, hear. It is
said that one penny in the income-tax was a substitute for
the paper duty, but if the present bill be registered, there
v; ill be nothing to prevent the House of Commons then
diminishing, if it thinks proper, the income-tax, or reducing
by one half the war-duties payable on tea and sugar. (Hear.)
Our rejection of the present bill actually gives to the Cpra-
mons the power of applying £1,000,000 sterling in the way
which in their judgment would be most conducive to the
public service. I wish to call attention to what will be the
result of repealing this duty on our public credit. I ask
any one conversant with mercantile affairs whether the
position of this country at present would be creditable, or I
might almost say decent, in the case of any private indi-
vidual who depends on his credit ? You have now a debt
which you are bound to pay at a given time. In November
you are bound by law to pay the owners of the Exchequer
bonds £1,0,0,000. What is the statement of the Chancellor
of the Exchequer ? In his place in Parliament he gets up
and says, at the very time when he diminishes his revenue
by £1,400,000, " I am not in a position to make provision
for that debt." The fairer statement would have been, " I
am putting myself in a position in which I cannot pay it."
And how do you stand ? This is not the first time you have
made a postponement of this kind, nor will it be the last.
There are two other sums of £1,000,000 each whch have
been carried on and made charges on the income of 1862
and 1863. For those you also have to provide; and
you have now established a precedent which a private mer-
chant could not venture to act on without forfeiting his
credit. Let me say a word about the condition in which
we stand. It has been said that the great object of the
money arrangements of the present year is to leave every-
thing, as far as possible, free and open for the decision of
Parliament in the next session ; yet at the same time it is
proposed that you should take a step which compromises
the whole case there was to be discussed, and commits you
to two propositions—one being the reckless substitution of
direct taxation falling on the property of the country for
indirect taxation incident to the consumption of various
articles. That step cannot be taken without the greatest
peril. (Hear.) Take, for example, the property tax ; it was
proposed by Mr. Pitt to carry them through a terrific
struggle. The proposition was that while the tax should be
considered a war tax it might be continued far one year in
peace, for the purpose of paying the outstanding expenses
of war. Well, Lord Liverpool was at the head of a strong
Government, but he was unable to defend the tax. The
dislike to it was so strong that it was not only thrown over •
board, but a motion was made in the House of Commons
that all the documents relating to it should be destroyed, to
preserve the country from its re-enactment, but:we have had
experience in our time. Sir C. Wood when Chancellor of
the Exchequer proposed the continuance of the property tax
for a year. Tho House of Commons consented to the propo-
sition, but it appointed a committee to inquire into the mode
of collecting the tax, and the result was that the tax was
swept from the face of the earth. Other cases of a
similar kind have occurred, but in this year the matter is
even worse, inasmuch as the tax is passed for a portion of
the year only—the most dangerous mode of dealing with
such an impost. But, after all, the real question is, have
we any money to spare? If we have, let us dispose of it in
a truly English way, by paying our debts and discharging
honestly the engagements we have undertaken. I deny,
however, that we have a surplus. We have been told, in-
deed, that by the falling in of certain annuities a large sum
_something like £2,000,000-45 at our dispbsal, and that
we may fairly apply it for the relief of the trade and com-
merce of the country. That is a pretty imagination, but it
is purely imagination. There is no fact to support it. The
payment of that money was anticipated before the annuities
fell in, because you have repealed other taxes ccntempora-
neously with the expiration of the annuities, and therefore
not a single sixpence of the £2,000,000 now remains avail-
able, But it may be said that we have other pious at our