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

PRIVILEGE.

Lord FERMOY asked whether the motion he had placed
on the paper, relative to the Paper Duties Repeal Bill,
which affected the privileges of the house, had not prece •
dente of other motions ?

The SPEAKER said that a question of this sort to have
precedence must refer to some matter that had recently
arisen, and was of immediate importance. The question re-
ferred to by the noble lord could not be said to be of this
character, because, 12 days ago, some resolutions were
adopted by the house on the subject. The house did not ad-
mit the claim of precedence unl,9ss the prescribed require-
ments were fulfilled, which not bming so in this instance no
precedence could be accorded.
DEFENCES OF TIIE COUNTRY.

In reply to Mr. HOPWOOD,
Lord PALMERSTON said he rather thought he would
make his statement on this subject on Friday, but he would
give a formal notice on the subject.
NATIONAL EDUCATION (IRELAND).

Mr. BUTT moved for an address to her Majesty praying
that some alteration might be made in the mode of distri-
buting the national education grant in Ireland. He con-
tended that the same system of national education allowed
in England ought also to be permitted in Ireland.
Mr. 'WHITESIDE supported the motion as the repre-
sentative of the opinions of the clergy and laity of the Rs--
formed Church of Ireland. The Government had recog-
nised the instinctive feeling and conscientious objections
of the Dissenting bodies on the matter of the Census Bill,
and he claimed equal respect for the instinctive feelings
and conscientious views of the Protestants of Ireland. The
bulk of the clergy had for 25 years steadily opposed this
system, and no Ministry during that period had been able
to induce them to give up their opposition to it. He was
prepared to make every concession to the Roman Catholics,
but would insist on the free use of the Bible for those of
his own Church.

Mr. CARDWELL defended the national system of edu-
cation in Ireland, as one which had, during the last 30
years, conferred greater advantages upon the people of that
country than could be paralleled in any other country in
the world, and which had during the whole time steadily
progressed in its influence over the minds of the people,
and risen in their estimation. In proof of this general con-
clusion the right hon. gentleman quoted the statistics of
the member of schools and scholars ever since 1830 up to
last year, and contended that the figures conclusively de-
monstrated the utter want of any foundation for the speeches
against it, or the motion of Mr. Butt. He denied that there
had been any infringement of, or departure from, the car-
dinal principles of the system for the benefit of Presbyte-
rians or Roman Catholics, and he refused assent to the de-
mand made in the terms of the motion. The right hon.
gentleman argued at some length in favour of the system,
which was successful in its character and in its results, and
had tine support of some of the highest authorities in the
country,
Mr. LrFROY thought it very hard on the clergy of the
Church in Ireland that they should be deprived of all
benefit from the national system of education.
Mr. HENNE,SSY moved the adjournment of the debate.
The house then divided, when the numbers were—
For the adjournment 6G
Against it
Majority
Mr. HENNESSY hoped the house would give its assent
to the motion of his hon. and learned friend the member
for Youghal.
Mr. BUTT, in reply, said the Roman Catholic bishops
had conscientious objections to the national system, and
that a large majority of the population of Ireland also en-
tertained conscientious objections to it. But the right hon.
gentleman the Secretary of State for Ireland said that the
Primate had approved and sanctioned the system. Now,
what he (Mr. Butt) complained of was that this mixed sys-
tem of education should be forced upor Ireland ; and, look-
ing at all the circumstances, he hoped the house would
agree to his motion. (Hear, hear.)

The house divided—
For the notion
Against it
Majority —l34
PAPER DUTIES REPEAL BILL.

Lord FERMOY moved that the rejection by the House
of Lords of the Bill for the Repeal of the Paper Duties was
an encroachment on the rights and privileges of the House
of Commons ; and that it was, therefore, incumbent upon

this house to adopt a practical measure for the vindication
of its right and privileges. The noble lord having apologised
for introducing a subject of so much importance at so late 1
an hour (half-past 11) promised to detain the house but a
very short time. (Hear, hear.) Whatever might be thought
of the subject within, there was a strong feeling of indigna-
tion on the subject out of doors. (Derisive cheers.) He
could point in support of his statement to numerous meet-
ings held in different parts of the country praying the house
to take some steps to vindicate its privileges ; and he
challenged hon. gentlemen opposite who cheered to
mention a single one at which it had been held that the
Lords were right. Petitions in favour of the course indi-

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

ing of delegates, attended by deputies from Manchester,
Liverpool, Birmingham, Glasgow, Warrington, Bristol,
_ _ _ _ _

Norwich, Newcastle- Oxford, and some 40 others

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

base policy of inaction recommended by Lord Palmerston

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

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

returned their thanks to the Right Hon. W. E. Gladstone

(derisive cheers)—for his noble defence of the constitu
tion—(loud laughter)—and they relied with confidence
upon his promise to do everything in his power to secure
the rights of the House of Commons. (Renewed laughter.)
Such was the opinion of these gentlemen, and as such it
was entitled to respect. (Hear.) Then there had been the
election for Brighton. (Loud laughter.) If all these things
were not a sufficient excuse for his conduct in bringing for-
ward the motion, he might appeal with confidence to the
language, in the house itself, of the Chancellor of the Ex-
chequer and the Foreign Secretary, and he felt warranted
i in saying that whatever might be the fate of his resolution,
it would receive the sanction and support of a large majo-
rity of the people out of doors. (Hear.) With these pre-
liminary remarks he would now come directly to the point.
(Hear.) There were two propositions which he proposed
to favour if he could. (Laughter.) The first was, that the
rejection of the Paper Duties Bill was an encroachment
upon the rights and privileges of the House of Commons ;
and the second, that it was the duty of the house to adopt
some practical measure to vindicate those rights. As to
the first point, he would not detain the house by reopen-
ing the question of precedents, but he would briefly detail
the steps that had been taken. They had first of all had a
committee of the first men in the house to examine prece-
dents. Upon that a motion was made by the First Lord
of the Treasury. Upon that occasion the noble lord pro-
posed three resolutions, which were adopted unanimously
by the house. He (Lord Fermoy) was one of those who
had taken steps that they should be carried unanimously,
and he did not regret Having taken those steps. (Hear.)
These resolutions were taken upon the examination of the
precedents. Of these he would take the first and third
under consideration. The first resolution was to the fol-
lowing effect :—" That the right of granting aids and sup -
plies to the Crown is in the hands of the Commons alone,
and the limitation of all such grants as to the matter,
manner, measure, and time is only in them." Now
what, he would ask, was the result of the budget of
the Chancellor of the Exchequer ? In that budget he
introduced principles, two of which it was only neces-
sary to refer at present. One was the repeal of the
paper duties, the other was an addition to the income-tax.
They assented in that house to the repeal of the paper
duties—they voted an additional ld. to the income tax.
(Hear, hear.) In that way they sent the budget to the
other house of Parliament. What was the effect ? Simply
this, that the right hon. gentleman and that house took off
from the shoulders of the consumers of paper £1,250,000,
and placed it on the shoulders of those who paid the in-
come tax. The house adopted that on this ground :—they
repealed the paper duties because they considered them an
impediment to education and a tax upon knowledge. They
sent the bill to the other house, and there the first bill
for the payment of the additional penny was adopted ; but
the bill which relieved the consumers of paper of £1,250,000
was rejected. That was a direct infringement of the rights
and privileges of that house, as laid down in the first reso-
lution ; because, how could it be said that in the Commons
alone was the limitation of all grants as to matter, manner,
measure, and time, when as to the matter, manner, and
time the Lords had interfered and altered their financial
arrangements relating to the taxation of the country I
(Hear.) There was another thing which ought not to be
passed over, namely, that in the proposal of the Commons
as dealing with taxation and finance, they not only shifted
a burden, but they altered the character and form of that
taxation, because, whereas the excise duty was a permanent
tax, the income tax was a variable tax. (Hear.) They altered
the financial proposal not only as to matter and manner, but
also as to time. This act, he said, without troubling
the house with precedents, had completely overset and
invaded their privileges and their rights as laid down in this
resolution which had been passed unanimously within the
last fortnight. (Hear.) If that were true, the next ques-
tion was, what remedy did he propose ? (Hear, hear.) He
did nei shrink from giving the best answer he could to that
question. But, before he did so, he must be allowed to re-
peat what ho said last night—namely, that considerable,
though not insuperable, difficulty had arisen from the man-
ner in which the Chancellor if the Exchequer had, since
the matter had been discussed in the Lords, dealt with'this
question. (Opposition cheers.) Now, it was quite clear
that if this rejection of the Paper Duties Bill was an ag-
gression, the only and best way to redress that was to send
them back the bill again. (Hear, hear.) The third resolu-
tion, however, pointed out clearly the proper manner of
doing this. The third resolution was to the following ef-
fect : " That in order to guard against the due exercise of
this power by the Lords, and to secure to the Commons pro-
per control over taxation and supply, the house has power
to remit taxation and frame bills of supply, that the matter,
manner, measure, and time of so doing may be preserved
inviolate." The meaning was this, that the Lords could not
interfere with any bill for the repeal of the paper duties.
(Hear, hear.) He (Lard Fermoy) might be unfortunately
suspected of being disposed to propose strong measures on
this question. But speaking for himself only, as his reso •
lution bound nobody, it was this. They by experience,
and in saying that he would add that the Lords were not
always in the right—it had been usual when the two houses
differed, if that house had adopted a line, and the Lords had
refused to do so, to give to the Lords a locus yenitentio, and
to send the bill back again. He thought one of the best fea-
tures of the way in which the Lords had rejected this bill was
their belief that the feeling of the country was with them.
(Opposition cheers.) Now suppose the House of
Commons could show that after full and free dis-
cussion of this question, both in the house and
out of it, the feeling of the country was against the
Lords—not rejecting this particular tax, but dealing with
the rights and privileges of that house—then he thought
that sending back the tax pure and simple was the best
mode of dealing with the question. (Hear, hear.) That
was the course which was adopted with regard to the Re-
form Bill, the Roman Catholic Relief Bill, and the Jew Bill.
That would be a consistent course, and one which he should
be disposed to adopt. But he was told that the Lords
would probably reject the bill again. 'Well, then would be
the time to embody therepeal of the tax in some money bill
which the Lords could not reject. It was not, however, his
business to point out to her Majesty's Government what
they ought to do. If his (Lord Feratoy's) resolution were
carried, the proper persons to carry it out would be her
Majesty's Government. (Hear, hear.) Upon their shoulders
was the responsibility. There was one reason why it was
necessary to take some step and some action on this sub-
ject, because it was manifest that, unless something were
now done, these two resolutions would be good for nothing
as a record of the rights and privileges of the Commons,
as they would be perfectly useless as regarded the present
question unless some action were taken. And now he hoped
he should have the support of the Chancellor of the Ex-
chequer to his resolution—(hear, hear)—because the right
hon. gentleman had the happy gift of speaking forcibly
and clearly, and if anybody had spoken out clearly and
boldly on this subject it was the Chancellor of the Ex-
chequer. In words to which he (Lord Fermoy) could not
refer, the Chancellor of the Exchequer said it was the duty
of the house to take action, and he went so far as to ask
underwhat form of constitution we were living, if the house
were to submit to this proceeding on the part of the House
of Lords. It was of the utmcst importance that they
should take action on the question, because this very act
would be a precedent against them. The report of the
committee recognised this as one of the very bills which
the Lords had rejected—(hear, hear)—and no doubt unless
they took action, restored their position, and placed them-
selves where they were before, this would be pointed to
hereafter as a precedent, because it would be said that the
Commons admitted by their three resolutions that this was
an act of aggression ; they did not resent it, therefore let it
be taken as a precedent against them. He had been told
that the line ho was taking was not a polite one. That was
unfortunate, but he (Lord Fermoy) was not to blame for
that. What he proposed was a plain and straightforward
way of dealing with the question. He believed that in this,
as in other questions, the best policy was honesty—(bear,
hear)—and if he were not successful this session it was the
duty of those who cherished and loved the rights of the peo-
ple to take the true line for preserving their privileges and
rights. The responsibility tested with those who opposed
because they could command a majority in the house,
ahl
ni1:1, if the policy were a bad one, it was rendered so by their
pusillanimity. Nothing was so essential to the stability of
our iustitutions, as that our public men should keep faith.
with the country. (Hear, hear.) Were her Majesty's Go-
vernment satisfied with the present state of things ? He
asked them whether. looking back at the occurreneas of the
last month or two, hegira:Ling with this aggression of tue
Lords down lo the passing of thew, three resolutions, were
they satisfied that the house was in as eced ,a position as it
was before the rejection of this bill by the House of Lercls ?
The :6SOIUtiUII4 Qf Lerel Palmerston did nothing to redress
their position. Th,:w were carsied by a unanimous vote, in
which he concurred with r;lestitub; i,,.y.it, they ought to take
action. (Cheers.) Out of doors, the pule 7p r':4 .OTrY
day turning their attention more and more t° tl44' /64°4'2;
They felt that the rights and privileges of that house I,ZZ--
identical with their own. An aggression was now made by