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

plary Christian, proposes meekly to turn to them
the other cheek—of a mild and placid resolution.
And this is the HERR TON PALMERS TON, whom
all Europe so unjustly charges with delighting in
broils !

But if Lord PALMERSTON had no fight in him,
the Chancellor of the Exchequer had enough for
both. He had scarcely opened fire, when Mr.

DISRAELI and Sir JOHN PAKINOTON rushed into
the House to watch its effect, and to get ready an

Opposition broadside in favour of the Premier and
the Lords. It was time to beat to quarters when Mr.
GLADSTONE began :—" I must say, considering that

gentlemen opposite are the partisans on this occa•
sion of the most gigantic innovation—(loud cheers;
—the most gigantic innovation, and the most dan.

gerous that has been attempted in our time—(hear,
hear)—I may compliment them on the prudence
they have shown in resolving to be its silent par-
tisans. (Cheers.) I should like to know in
what language and in what tone those who
assume to be Conservative politicians could
argue in support of a great encroachment
by one House of Legislature on the other."
And when adverting to Mr. EDWIN JAMES' speech
he said,—" I do not scruple to say that this house
would do well to viudicate and establish its rights

by action. (Loud cheers.) Without in the leas
degree imputing blame or finding fault with the
terms of the resolutions proposed by the Govern-
ment, in which I heartily concur, I reserve to my-
self entire freedom to adopt any mode, if more likely
to be attended with success, of vindicating by action
the privileges of this House! I I" (Cheers.)
Of all this the meaning could not be mistaken.
Mr. GLADSTONE will prefer, if ho see any chance
of success, to send up in some form the Paper Re-
peal Bill to the Houses of Lord this year, and in
some such form, as that alluded to in the third
resolution, such as will render it impossible for the
Lords again to reject it. His ingenuity could no
doubt easily effect this, but the question we ima-
gine will then be whether he or Lord PALMERSTON
should give way. His arguments were certainly
exceedingly ingenious and well stated. He showed
conclusively that the question was one of usage
only, not of rules, since there was nothing in the
rules of the Lords to prevent their doing what they
allowed they ought not to do ; that in fact the claims
of both houses were in theory unlimited. But
practically the Commons only meant to reserve to
itself the integrity of the taxing power," while the
Lords only " meant to preserve to itself an effective
means of preventing the House of Commons from
forcing npon it other matters of general legislation
under cover of money bills." This is, we believe, a
very fair account of the spirit of the course taken
by both houses both in remoter and in more modern
mes.

Mr, GLADSTONE contended that if they were to
" preserve their essential privileges inviolate, the
origination of a bill for the imposition of a tax, or
the amendment of a money bill, is a slight thing
compared to a bill to prevent the repeal of a tax."
He showed that the now celebrated Stone Bottle
Bill, was really a bill to double the tax. He might
like the £700,000 he should get between August
and April, but he should like to get it honestly ;
there were some things even more valuable than
money ; open as a Chancellor of the Exchequer
was to its seductions. He maintained that the
financial privileges of the house did not rest
on its infallibility of course it could err the
question was whether the Lords had the con-
stitutional right to rectify its financial
errors. The Commons had, in 1853, repealed the
soap duty in order to abide by its pledges, and in
face of the Russian war—far costlier than a Chinese
one—and the Lords did not interfere. In 1839, to
establish a penny postage, they created a deficiency
of about the same amount as the paper duty, but the
Lords did not correct them ; and it was most re-
markable that the Chancellor of the Exchequer who
sent up that bill to the Lords, was the Mr. THO-
MAS SPRING RICE who now, under the title of Lord
MONTEAGLE, has originated the present dispute by
proposing the rejection of the Paper Duties Repeal
Bill. The hon. member concluded with observing
—" I content myself at present with saying that
there is no colour of precedent for their proceedings.
This is a matter of great importance. Eince 1815,
there had been £78,000,000 of taxes repealed. All
the bills for the repeal of those taxes had bean
accepted by the Rouse of Lords from the Rouse
of Commons upon the responsibility of the Com-
mons ; and now, when we come to the seventy-
ninth million, the House of Lords thinks fit to
establish a new precedent ! For my part I cannot
but think that this is a time in which men are
little disposed to deal with abstract principles ; and
that those assertions which our forefathers made of
their rights, we now think one of little value com-
pared with obtaining a few hundred thousand
pounds. But I must confess I cannot bring my
mind to take that view. I view the whole rights
of the House of Commons as they have been handed
down to us constituting a sacred inheritance,
upon which I for my part will never per-
mit any intrusion or plunder. I think that
anterior to the duty of dealing with all other legis-
lative duties, our first duty is to take care that we
maintain intact that precious deposit. I concur in
every word of my noble friend's resolutions, which
declare that we have in our hands the means of
maintaining it inviolate. We have in our hands
the means of framing bills of supply as solely be-
longing to the rights of the House of Commons.
I respectfully reserve to myself the freedom of act-
ing in the best way to give effect by practical mea-
sures to the principles which I maintain." These
are noble words, and we trust there are few even
of his antagonists who would not be ready to adopt
them.

GARIBALDI is lucky in the English Houses of
Parliament. He has an enemy in each. But for
this, half the praise he has had both in Lords and
Commons would never have been heard there, and
of course heard all over Europe. Lords PALMER-
STON and RUSSELL have by this means had the
opportunity to utter sentiments concerning Italy,
Naples, Sicily, and the General, which have been
received with shouts of gratitude, as authentic
letters inform us, in Palermo itself. The moral
support of British statesmen, backed by the
British people, is a source of strength to patriots
struggling for liberty all over the world.
Last night the ire of Lord NORMANBY gave
Lord BROUGHAM an opportunity to send another
telegram to Naples and Sicily—for assuredly it
will soon be there. The Ex-Whig Ambassador to
the Ex Court of Florence, must take upon
himself to catechise the Government respect-
ing the appointment of the Due di SAN
GIUSEPPE by GARIBALDI as the Sicilian
representative to England, and to denounc'
GARIBALDI as a " foreign adventurer." Where-
upon the Earl of ELLENBOROUGH observed that he
" did not think General GARIBALDI could have
chosen a worthier representative than the one whose
name had been mentioned ;" and Lord BROUGHAM,
to give Lord NORMANBY further satisfaction, added
that he a would draw no comparison of
• General GARIBALDI with certain Potent-Iles,
or say anything of adventurers who had
gained
their possessions by force of arms, as