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

THE SUN, LONDON, FRIDAY EVENING, JULY 6, 1860.

somewhat wide of the question which has occasioned this
research. There are, however, precedents that bear directly

on the point at issue, because between the year 1714 and the
present day there hate been about 36 cases of bills for re-
pealing ditties or imposts of some kind or other, which,
having been sent up to the Lords, have by them been re-
jected, or at least have not come down again to this house.

So far as these precedents go, it will be contended that they

are authorities upon which the House of Lords may think
itself justified in the proceeding which it has recentlycarried
into effect. But, nevertheless, if you look into those prece-

dents, you will find that the bills which were so rejected by
them were those bills involving taxes of very small amount,

or taxes connected with questions of commercial protection,
or of policy of some other kind, so that in fact it may be

said that in those cases the rejection of the bills arose not
so much from the determination of the Lords to continue an
impost on the country as an impost, but arose from their
differing in opinion with the Commons as to some question
of national pelicy, in regard to which those taxes or im-
posts were to continue or to be repealed. And this also
may be said in regard to the amount of those taxes that none
of them were at all to be compared in quantity or in amount
with the revenue which was involved in this bill for the re-

peal of the duties on paper. But then, admitting, as I think
we must do, that technically, in point of power, we have
never questioned the right of the Lords to reject bills, yet
the present case assumes somewhat of a different character,
because we have maintained in words, and we have main-
tained by actions, that it rests with this house to frame the
supplies of the year (cheers), to consider and determine with
regard to the aids and supplies of the year what taxes shall
be proposed, what taxes shall be remitted, what shall be the
proportion between imposition and remission, and what shall
be the nature of the arrangement ; and it is our privilege to
combine the whole into one scheme, and when that scheme is
so combined, it certainly is not consistent with the rights
and functions of this house that any material portion of the
scheme so framed should be rejected by the other house, so
as to alter and entirely vary the bearing of the whole finan-
cial arrangement. (Cheers.) Well then, the question is, was
that done by the House of Lords on the late occasion ? Why,
sir, one must admit that in principle it was done. (Cheers.)
It cannot be denied that the repeal of the paper duty did
form an important element in that plan of finance which
was sent up by this house to the Lords, and if everything
had remained as it was whenthat plan of finance was framed
the refusal of the Lords to pass that remission of duty, hav-
ing agreed to pass a bill adding tagnother duty, would have
deranged that combination of finance which, on a balance
of remission and imposition, had been thought by this house
to be good for the interest of the country, for the supplies of
the present year. (Cheers.) At the same time we have ad-
mitted that in those 36 cases of rejection to which I have
alluded an element of policy was allowed to enter into the de-
cision of the house upon those cases. It is of course not easy
to affirm with certainty what were the grounds upon which
the House of Lords may have acted in any one of those
cases ; but looking at the manner in which, in those in-
stances, views of taxation waere combined with other kinds
of policy, it is fair to assume that in those cases the rejec-
tion of the bill did not arise from a refusal of the Lords
simply to relieve the people from a certain amount of bur-
then, but arose from the Lords believing that the arrange-
ments with which the repeal of that burthen was coupled
were not for the public advantage, and therefore they re-
jected the repeal because they thought the public interest
was not consulted by that with which it was connected.
Well, then, sir, I will put the case as impartially as I can,
in bringing my mind to the consideration of a question on
which I think party feeling should be cast aside, and in
which much higher and larger interests are concerned ; for
the course the house shall now take will be a precedent to
guide future Parliaments in time to come, and therefore one
ought to place oneself in the situation of an impartial spec-
tator, and state fairly and honestly that which may be said
on either side of the question. Now though I cannot allude
here to anything that may have passed in the debate in the
House of Lords —for it is not consistent with our orders to
do so—yet, looking broadly at the matter, I do not believe
that in ordinary circumstances, if this house had deter-
mined that a certain amount of taxation was fit to be re-
pealed, and had sent up a bill to the House of Lords for that
purpose, the House of Lords would have rejected such a bill.
I do not believe that if it had been shown that there was
any excess of taxation which pressed heavily upon certain
interests of the country, that that amount of revenue was
unnecessary, or that a better application of that taxation
might be made by transferring the burden to some other
interest that would bear it better—l do not believe, judging
from what has happened, we know, on some former occa-
sions, that the Lords would have taken the step which they
have taken. Why we know what an immense amount of
taxation has been repealed by the two houses of parliament
since the end of the war in 1815. Upon no one occasion
that I am aware of, in any of those instances, have the
Lords dissented from the decision of the Commons to relieve
the country from a burden which was thought to be unne-
cessary ; and therefore I cannot bring myself to believe that
the Lords intended, by the step which they took upon this oc-
casion to enter upon a course which if they did intend to enter
upon it, it would have become this house to resist by every
means which is constitutionally and legally in their power—
I do not believe the House of Lords intended to take the
first step towards partnership with this house in arranging
the budget of the year, the measure, the manner, and time
of the grants, the aids and supplies, which it belongs wholly
and exclusively to this house to tender. If any of us be-
lieved that such was their intention, and that it is only the
first step to another course—(hear, hear, from below the
gangway)—why then, I say it would become us to resolve
in our minds to take those measures which we have in our
power, and to meet that intention, to defeat and to frus-
trate ir. But I say that until we have some more decided
proof that such intentions are enterta;ned, I should abjure
this house—(cheers from the Opposition)—to content itself
with that record or declaration which is contained in the
resolutions I have the honour to lay on the table, and not,
without being driven into it as a necessity, to enter into a
formal conflict with that house. (Cheers from the Opposi-
tion.) Well, but had the Lords no encouragement from this
house to take that step ? (Cheers from the Opposition.)
That bill passed on the second reading by a majority, I
think, of 53. It was brought into this house under cir.
cumstances which are entirely altered—notoriously and
publicly known to be altered—at the time when that rejec-
tion took place : but when this bill is proposed for the se-
cond reading, although opposed by many, it was neverthe-
less carried by a majority of 53. Well, sir, if on the third
reading it had gone into the Lords with an equal majority
or a large majority, I would not myself believe that the
Lords would have done otherwise than pass it. But they
saw—and these things, although they may not be known
officially, yet are matters of public notoriety, and the re•.
cords of our proceedings are laid on their table—they
saw that during the interval between our second and third
reading, the opinion of this house appeared to have under-
gone a considerable alteration—(cheers from the Opposition)
—that the majority of 53 was reduced to nine. (Cheers
and laughter from the Opposition.) Were not the Lords
entitled to think that the opinion of this house was not so
strong as it had been ? and so far as they were guided by
public opinion, they might legitimately infer that which
the hon. Secretary to the Treasury has confirmed by an
estimate which ho has laid on the sable—(hear, hear, from
the Opposition)—that events which it was hoped would
not occur when the original arrangements were proposed,
and wh;ch we bad a right to expect might not take place,
had taken place, and would take place. And might they
not think that it would be wise to give this house at least
time for reconsideration, with a view to see whether that
amount of revenue, which was justly thought to be unne-
cessary at the time when the arrangements were made,
might not, by altered circumstances, the change of which
was beyond our control, become a source of income which it
would be desirable to keep for the year—(cheers)—rather
than to make up for it by transferring to other interests
and other sources of industry that burthen which had been
borne by the industry and interest of paper ? Well, stating,
I think impartially—(cheers)—the case on both sides, while
on the one hand I think this house would have a right to
resent and to resist any attempt on the part of the Lords to
enter into partnership with us, with a view of guiding and
determining the financial arrangements for the year—
while I think they would be stepping out of their pro-
vince, and departing from that line of constitutional right
which the history of the country has assigned them, yet
on the other hand, if it can be believed (and I am led my-
self to think so), that they were actuated on this occasion
not by any such intention, but by motives of policy de-
pending on the circumstances of the moment, then I say
I think it would not be wise of this house to enter into
a conflict, upon a ground which might not really exist,
but to satisfy themselves with a declaration of what is
their own constitutional power and privilege, reserving to
themselves the exercise of that power which they have, by
their own means, if the occasion should arise, if that opinion
which I have expressed should not be confirmed, and if
the deliberate course should be pursued of changing the
whole system of constitutional proceedings with regard to
taxation, we will
idemehteeaarrnmesinwehtihat if that should arise we
wexoiusteldncues,eantdhowshe
o
odmr ouo
may
yds
privileges
ntrhiivntnilptkehogetienhseteo(olonasurstttoi tutruhertseicooomlnunaetsitltohipntourdtitovibooilyne
constitutional
leoipcf
(a
sufficientch lt am ceonntvianneyedsuachreinin.
. •
rights
laue
gh)—that
igullghs
Ise)
_yt e
tnlkhaflnaoa Many
will not say our privileges, for that is a narrow expression),
if they have been invaded. There are many ways, which
any man who knows the proceedings and powers of this
house will at once have present to his mind, and in which,
on such an occasion arising, we shall be able, first by per-
suasion, first by argument, and ultimately to the exercise of
our own authority, to prevent such an encroachment on
the constitutional functions of this house. And if such a
course, such a mad course, were to be attempted as that, it
is not by a violent resolution laid on the table of this house
—it is not by a scolding match with the Lords—(laughter)
—it is not by impotent words laid on the table and voted
by this house that our constitutional rights would have to
be vindicated ; it would be by action which we should not
be slow to discover the mode of taking. I have not that
opinion of the power of this house, and of public opinion,
which would back it in such a ca,e, to believe that we
should be reduced to the condition in which the Commons
of 1671 represented themselves to be when they said that
their right to grant aids to`the Crown was " the only poor
thing which tbey had" for the acceptance of the sovereign.
The House of Commons is now in a very different

position from that in which it was at other periods of
our history. And if there be anything which may per-
haps be taken as settled in public opinion with re-

gard to the relative power of the different branches
of the legislature, it is that the course of things,
the spread of representation, the diffusion of knowledge, the
power of the r eers, and the effect of public opinion has been
that this house is daily increasing in its political power, in-
stead of diminishing in that respect, and therefore, so far
from feeling any apprehension that the Lords would be able
to usurp the legitimate functions of this house, I am per-
fectly convinced that if this house pursues a steady, a dig-
nified, and a consistent course—if it abstains from any •
thing that may savour of opposition or aggression ; if it
stands upon its own, maintains its own rights, and affirms
that it has and will exercise, if necessary, the means of

making those rights respected—we need not have the
slightest doubt or apprehension—and I think it would be
disrespectful to the house to entertain any apprehension—
that whenever our real functions should be deliberately in-

vaded, we should be unable to maintain them in the face of
the country, and with the approval and sanction of the na-

tion. (Cheers.) I say then that these resolutions are fitted
for the occasion at the present moment. I think they de-
clare what our constitutional rights and functions are—
rights and functions which are interwoven, I may say, with
the whole history of the country—which no man can deny,
and which will not be denied, I will venture to say, by any
single individual either in the Houses of Parliament or in
any other part of the country—l think these resolutions
sufficiently establish our right. They point out that, if that
right should be invaded, we have in our own hands the
means of resisting that invasion. I think it would not have
been becoming, on an occasion on which there was an ap-
pearance, at all events, of an intention to invade our func-
tions, it would not have been right or decent for this house
to remain absolutely silent. That might have been con-
strued into a yielding a concession of the rights and func-
tions which we ought to retain in our own hands. On
the other hand, I think we should not have raised our-
selves in public estimation, -and I do not think we should
have done anything towards effectually maintaining
our rights, if we had thrown into these reso-
lutions anything that might appear to be the
commencement of hostilities with the other branch of the
legislature. It is of the utmost importance that as in our
constitution there are different branches, independent of
each other, each with powers of its own, but the harmoni-
ous action of whose powers is necessary to the working of
the constitution—it is most desirable not to commence an
unnecessary quarrel. The party which does that would
incur, I think, a grave responsibility. I will not believe
that it was the intention of the House of Lords to do so.
Some may think that I entertain too favour able a view as
regards that. (Hear, hear, from below the gangway.) I
state what I think about it, and I say that if we have not
proof sufficient to satisfy us that this was the first step to-
wards a new course of constitutional conduct, we bad better
pursue the course which is now recomtn ended to the adop-
tion of the house. I think that course is dignified—l think
it will be effectual. lam convinced in my own mind that
these resolutions going forth from this house will be a suf-
ficient warning to guard against any recurrence for the fu-
ture of that to which we most justly take objection. We
are not prepared to undo that which has been done. If it
were in ordinary times, under ordinary circumstances, we
should have advised this house to pass again that bill
which was rejected in the other house, to return it to them,
and to have obstructed all other business till it was passed;
to have exercised all those powers which we had in our
own hands, and to have rendered it necessary,for the other
House of Parliament to have passed that bill. But the
circumstances of the moment do not make that course of
action a convenient one. (A laugh.) That being so, I
say that unless we had felt at liberty to have returned that
bill in some shape or other, and to have insisted now, and
in this session, on the repeal of that particular duty, it is
more dignified of the house to ,take the course which it is
my duty to propose. I would only, in conclusion, urge
on the two Houses of Parliament that advice which a
great authority on parliamentary matters (Mr. Hatsell)
has embodied in two pages of his work. After mention-
ing a series of transactions which ho has quoted, he
proceeds thus :—" I would say to the Lords, that from the
history of all these transactions the conclusion to be drawn
is that it should be the endeavour of both houses, and of
every member of each house of Parliament, to take care in
their proceedings not to transgress those boundaries which
the constitution has wisely allotted to them, or to interfere
in those matters which, by the rules and practice of Parlia-
ment in former ages, are not within their jurisdiction ; for
the rights and privileges of Parliament are interwoven
with the earliest establishment of government in this coun-
try." Sir, I would recommend that passage to the conside-
ration of the Lords. (Cheers and laughter.) To the House
of Commons I would venture to suggest another passage
from the same author. He says—" The sole and exclusive
right of beginning all aids and charges on the public, and
not suffering any alteration to be made by the Lords is suf-
ficiently guarded by the practice of the house here ex-
pressed, and it does not seem to be either for their honour
or advantage to push the matter further, and by asserting
privileges which might be subject to doubt and discussion,
thereby to weaken their claim to those clear and indubitable
rights which are vested in them by the constitution, and
have been confirmed to them by the constant and uniform
practice of Parliament." To refuse to the House of Lords
the abstract eight of dissenting would bring us under the
censure of that passage. Ido not believe the house would
be disposed to follow up that course. I am inclined to think
that this house values that harmony which is so essential
between the two branches of the legislature for the manage-
ment of the affairs of tLe country. And if that must at all
times be, as it ought to be, the ruling and guiding feeling
of this house, I am sure that there is nothing in the pre-
sent aspect of affairs out of England, there is nothing in the
general aspect of the affairs of Europe and the world, which
would lead this house to think more lightly than usual of
holding up to foreign nations the lamentable and humiliating
spectacle of a disunited legislature—of a divided people—of
an internal contest—at a time when it is essential for the
dignity, the honour, and interest of the country that we
should exhibit to all the world an harmonious unity of
action—a co-operation of all the estates of the realm for the
common interest and welfare of the people. (Cheers.)
Mr. COLLIER said that the first of the noble lord's re-
solutions was sufficiently explicit, but he could not compli-
ment the noble lord on the perspicuity of the two following
resolutions. (Hear, and a laugh.) He was not sure if it
was to be collected from them whether or not the Commons
had a right to complain of the proceedings of the House of
Lords, though, from the third resolution, ho fancied they
had, or otherwise he hardly knew on what principle it was
declared that they were to take steps to prevent a recurrence
of what had been done. (Hear.) He had given notice of
an amendment, which would have remedied any ambiguity
in these resolutions. His amendment was to the effect
that the House of Lords by rejecting the Paper Duty
Repeal Bill had committed a violation of constitutional
usage. (Hear, hear.) Re used no hard words or strong
expressions, but the House of Lords had either committed
a breach of constitutional usage or it had not. If it had not,
he did not know what occasion there was for a resolution at
all—(hear, hear)—but if it had he did not see why the House
of Commons should shrink from declaring so. It had been
his intention to propose a resolution containing a defir ite
expression of the opinion of the house', but as hon. members
around him were in favour of a unanimous vote, and as he
should be running counter to their feelings by proposing
his resolution, he thought it would not bo desirable that
he should prevent that unanimous decision which was
desired. Having been, however, a member of the select
committee, he might, perhaps, be allowed to explain the
views ho entertained. Not one word would fall from him
in the slightest degree disrespectful to the House of Lords.
All acquainted with history knew that the country owed to
the Lords no small portion of its liberties, and their
privileges were as dear to them as were the privi-
leges of the Commons to the Commons. He did
net mean to assert that the vote of the House of
Lords on the Paper Duty Repeal Bill was illegal, but he
maintained that it was opposed to constitutional usage, and
that it was a breach of that tacit understanding which regu-
lated the functions of the two Houses of Parliament, and
without the maintenance of which the constitution could
not work. (Hear.) He might in one moment illustrate the
difference between that which was legal and that which was
constitutional. No one would dispute the legal right of
the Crown to veto any number of bills, but, if the Crown
vetoed every bill passed by the two houses, would any man
say that such a course was constitutional ? On this point
ho would quote an authority respected by hon. gentlemen
opposite. Lord Lyndhurst, upon the discussion respecting
life peerages in the House of Lords,
insisted as against the
Crown that there might be a strict legal right, the exercise
of which would be unconstitutional ; and the noble and
learned lord concluded by stating that one of the principles
of the constitution was long-continued usage. Tho same
argument was used by another learned lord, who observed
leges per desuctudinum abrogantur. In 1702 the House of
Lords protested against the Commons arnexing to a bill of
supply a clause rendering the managers of Excise incapable
of sitting in Parliament, and if the Lords could assert
against the Commons the distinction between what was
legal and what was constitutional, they could not complain
that the distinction was asserted against themselves. Let
him now point out to the house the effect of the recent pro-
ceeding of the Lords. The House of Commons passed a
budget, ono of the main features of which was the repeal of
the paper duty, and another was the increase of the income
tax. There were several divisions in the house, and many
persons voted for the increase of the income tax, on the dis-
tinct understanding that the paper duty was to be repealed.
Now, the House of Lords accepted so much of the budget
as increased the income tax, but refused so much as re-
pealed the paper duty, and he maintained that there was
no precedent for such a course. Let the house consider
what would have been the effect if the Paper Duty Repeal
Bill had been made to take effect at once. The duty
would immediately have been taken off, and then the
result of the Lords' decision would have been to reimpose
it. (Hear.) The decision of the House of Lords had been
defended on the ground that the House of Commons did not
take sufficient care to provide supplies for the exigencies of
the country, and that the Horse of Lords took a more com-
prehensive view of the circumstances of the country.
(Hear, from the Opposition side.) He could understand
hon. gentlemen opposite taking that view; but the House
of Lords by the course they pw stwi differed from the'

Crown and the House of Commons, and undertook to sup-
ply a million and a quarter of money more than the two
former thought necessary. (Hear, hear.) He could not
assent to the doctrine hinted at by the noble lord, that the
constitutional right of the Lords to deal with a Money Bill
depended in any way on the amount of the majority by
which it had been passed in the Lower House. (Hear,

hear.) Every one was familiar with the fact—but from its
very familiarity it was not sufficiently borne in mind—that

the Commons alone were addressed by the Sovereign on the
question of supply, and were alone thanked for supplies at
the end of the session• —(hear, hear)—thought it would only
' "

be an act of proper courtesy this year if the Royal Speech,

at the close of the session, thanked the Lords for th©

£1,250,000 which they had added to the revenue. (Hear.)

Money Bills, moreover, were always sent bask to the Com-
mons, instead of being presented by the Lords to the Crown.
Above all there was this fact, that for a great length of time
the votes of the House of Commons with respect to matters of

supply had all been treated as perfectly final and conclusive.
(Hear.) Blackstone laid this down most distinctly. " The

results of this committee of ways and means," he wrote,
" are in general esteemed final and conclusive, though the
supply cannot be raised on the subject until directed by an
act of the whole Parliament. (Hear, hear.) Yet no moneyed
man would scruple to advance a large sum of money to the
Government on the credit of a bare vote of the House of

Commons." Blackstone, the most accurate of writers, would
never have penned these words if the House of Lords had
ever dealt with a budget as they had dealt with this. (Hear.)
Lord Chatham, too, was equally explicit on this point. In
speaking on the bill for taxing America, he said, "Taxation
is no part of government or of the legislative power. It is
the voluntary gift of the Commons alone. In legislation
the three estates of the realm are alike concerned, but the
concurrence of the Lords and the Crown to a tax is only
necessary to clothe it with the force of law. The gift to the
Crown is in the Commons alone." This was the faith in
which we had been brought up, and, acting on this faith,
the House of Commons had voted a large amount of taxes
on a permanent footing instead of merely annually, in the
belief and understanding that the House of Lords would
never interfere to prevent the revocation of them. The
House of Commons never would have voted the sugar duties
or the malt duties as permanent revenues if they had under-
stood that the Lords could interpose to prevent their aboli-
tion at any time. (Hear, hear.) The very appointment of
this Committee of Precedents was a proof that the act of the
Lords had taken everybody by surprise. It was said by
some people that the Lords had only done what they had
been accustomed to do before, and the rejection of the
Church-rates Abolition Bill was cited as an instance ;
but, if that were an analogous case, why, when that
bill was rejected, did not the noble viscount move
for a committee of precedents ? (Hear, hear.) The
appointment of a committee of precedents, it must be re-
membered, was a grave proceeding, never adopted by the
Commons except when their privileges were seriously me-
naced by the Crown or the Lords. The committee had not
thought it necessary in their search for precedents to go
further back than the year 1628. The most important pre-
cedents occurred after that year, and it was unquestionably
most important to ascertainwhat had been the practice since
the Revolution, at which time the constitution might be
said to have been finally settled. But it must be borne in
mind that, though it was then settled, it was settled upon
the old foundations. One of the oldest and most valued of
those foundations was the exclusive right of the Lower
House to tax thepeople. That right was as old as the house
itself. The House of Commons seemed to have broken the
egg full-fledged as far as its powers of taxation were con-
cerned ; they were coeval with it—it was called into exist-
ence as an instrument of taxation. In the 9th of Edward
11. there was an act entered on the rolls of Parliament, in
which both houses concurred, to enable the King to raise
troops ; but the grant of money was stated to be from the
Commons alone. (Hear, hoar.) In the three following
reigns the Commons asserted again and again their exclu-
sive right to tax thepeople. During the reigns of the princes
of the house of Tudor the rights of both houses were to a
considerable extent in abeyance, both being overawed by
the Crown; but neither Henry VIII. nor Elizabeth ever
ventured to dispute the rights of the House of Commons in
matters of taxation to the extent they were disputed after-
wards by James and Charles. In 1640 the same right which
had existed for centuries was nobly asserted by Pym on be.
half of the House of Commons. On that occasion the Loris
sent a message to the Commons to the effect that it would
be desirable to begin with supply before any other business
was entered upon; and they prefaced their communication
with the memorable admission, " on all these considera-
tions, although my lords would not meddle with matters
of subsidy, which belongs properly and naturally to you—
no, not so much as to give you advice therein—yet they
have thought it right," &c. The House of Lords in the
present day had done a good deal more than give advice,
they had differed from the House of Commons on a question
of supply, and had rejected a bill in reference to it which
the Commons had agreed to. (Cheers.) Mr. Pym, in his
speech at the conference, declared that their lordships, in
voting it to be just and necessary that matter of supply
should have precedence of other business, had "not only
meddled with matter of supply, but as far as in them lay
had concluded both the matter and order of proceeding;
which the House of Commons took to be a breach of privi-
lege." On all great occasions the House of Commons sub-
sequently asserted their rights by resolution ; and he would
be able to show that the precedents which had now been
collected were in no way applicable to the proceedings taken
by the flouts() of Lords. these precedents were divided
into two classes, those in which the Lords had amended
money bills, and those in which they had rejected them.
If the question they were now considering had been the
right to amend he should have felt under much greater
difficulty, as the precedents in favour of that course were far
more numerous than those in which bills had been rejected
altogether. (Hear.) It was to be borne in mind that the
Lords had never relinquished their right to amend money
bills, but had strongly maintained their power of doing so.
And, although it was said in debate that this claim was
abandoned, such a concession could not bind them any more
than an admission by the Attorney-General at a conference
would be binding on the House of Commons. They had
never denied that the House of Lords had power to deal
with all questions save those of taxation; and to maintain
that bills like those relating to church-rates or highways
were beyond the province of the Upper House because in-
cidentally powers of taxation were conferred by them would
be an encroachment on the functions of that assembly. But
on looking over the cases which had been cited as precedents
he did not find one in which a bill for repealing or altering
a tax had been rejected purely on financial grounds. In five
of the 31 instances questions of religion were involved ; six
others related to subjects such as regulation of highways,
the sale of game, and the relief of the poor ; 18 more were
measures affecting trade or agricultural interests; and the
Coasting Trade Bill and Works Bill, wbieh had been
specilly referred to, really turned on the question of pro-
tection or free trade. The preamble of the Stone Bottles
Bill, on which the claim of the House of Lords was mainly
founded, expressly stated that it was desirable to protect
the glass manufacture of the country. The remaining cases
cited as precedents could not be classified under the heads
which he had already quoted. Tito of them were bills pre
venting Custom-house officers from levying gratuities on
persons with whom their business brought them into con-
nexion, and had nothing whatever to do with the taxation
of the public. The next was the Tobacco and Snuff Bill,
which contained 177 clauses with a great variety of regula-
tions applicable to the whole tobacco and snuff trade, and
that being so it formed no precedent at all, for no one in his
senses could deny the right of the House of Lords to deal
with it. (Hear, hear.) The Wino Merchants' Bonds Bill
was one founded on a petition of some merchants who
prayed to be relieved from paying interest on their bonds
for duties they having already paid the principal. It was a
frivolous case, so small, in fact, that you could not expect
the House of Commons to notice it. De minimis non curat
lex. It was not to be supposed that the Commons were
always awake to such small attacks on their privileges.
(Hear.) These were all the precedents where the Lords
had postponed or rejected bills for repealing or altering
duties or charges on the people. One or two of these bills
had been dropped by the Government, others had been
dropped on account of amendments made in committee or
through the lateness of the session. (Hear.) With regard
to bills of supply rejected by the Lords, some involved the
question of protection, others were " tack" bills, comprising
a hotchpotch of entirely different subjects, for which reason
it was incumbent on the House of Lords, in conformity
wfth one of their standing orders, to reject them. The
Lottery Bill, from which Mr. Pitt in 1790 proposed to raise
a revenue, was not thrown out as part of the budget, but
because of one of the criminal provisions which it contained.
When the Corn Law Bill of 1827 was abandoned by the
Government in the House of Lords, owing to an amend-
ment made in committee, Mr. Canning said :
" I presume the House of Commons is not so reduced as
to abjure what its members have declared to be necessary
principles, to rescind their deliberate resolutions, and to
throw away as waste paper that bill whioh they have so
much and so carefully considered, merely because in a cer-
tain assembly, which, for many reasons, is entitled to our
respect, they did not happen to be entertained with that
courtesy which might have been expected." And headded
If there be a single spark of pride or of shame in the
House, they will not submit to it."
Cheers.) In 1853, Lord Ellenborough proposed to put off
the Soap Duties Repeal Bill for one week, and Lord Aber-
deen then asserted. the true constitutional doctrine,—
" If (ho said) the greatest calamity that could befall this
country should be imminent, why, even then, he did not
think it was the duty of the House of Lords to interfere and
prevent the relief afforded to the people by the repeal of
these duties. (Cheers.) If it should happen that the House
of Commons should determine that this country shall be
placed in a state of war, why the House of Commons would
undoubtedly provide the means for carrying it out."
(Cheers.) Lord Derby, on this occasion, used language
differing very much from that which he had employed in
1860. He said the members of the Opposition were not dis-
posed to bring that house in collision with the Commons.
His lordship therefore knew, in 1853, that the rejection of
such a bill would bring the two houses into collision.
(Hear, hear.)
"His noble friend (continued Lord Derby) did not ask
them to refuse their consent to the measure sent up to them
by the House of Commons, but he asked them to be quite
satisfied, before they passed it, that the circumstances were
the same in whi, h the House of Commons was placed when
they thought it expedient and practicable to take off this
amount of taxation. . . . Would it not be prudent to
keep that amount in hand, in order that the House of Com-