The Sun.
London, England, 1860-06-02 00:00:00

hate discovered—what I presume every gentleman who
knows anything of the debate has discovered—that it was
not a question there whether the paper duty was a good or
bad dirty, or whether it was a better duty o: worse duty
than the duties on tea and sugar. The whole course of the
argument was that the Chancellor of the Exchequer, sup-
ported by the House of Commons, had not provided ade-
quately for the ways and means of the sere: ce of the year.
(Hear.) That was the argument used in the other House
of Parliament, and upon that argument almost entirely the
policy was adopted of rejecting the Bill. If that be so—and
I am not going to arguenow whetherit was rightly founded
or net—it is clearly not very reasonable to ask the Chan-
cellor of the Exchequer to introduce some other bill for the
remission either of the tea or sugar duties, which bill, I
presume, would not become law upon the new theory of the
Constitution, without the consent of the other House of
Parliament. (Hear, hear.) If there be any validity in the
argument of the House of Lords for the rejection of the
Paper Duty Bill—viz., that the House of Commons have
not sufficiently provided for the service of the year—it is
clear that the House of Lords would not only be justified,
but would be compelled, to reject a new bill sent up instead
of the Paper Duties Bill. The house, therefore, I presume,
would not expect the Chancellor of the Exchequer to take
that course, and I am only surprised that the hon. gentle-
man should have imagined such a case. Besides, we must
take into consideration that, though the tea and sugar duties
were mentioned in what is called the Budget speech, yet
now we have got new masters in matters financial, and the
Chancellor of the Exchequer will have to consider much
more minutely and take far more circumstances into his view
when he is deliberating what taxes he shall propose to re-
mit or to impose. The hon. member for Cambridge, looking
in this direction, took the liberty of making some reference
to what he called agitation out of doors. (Hear, hear from
the Opposition.) Hon. gentlemen opposite are not altoge-
ther free from the charge of endeavouring to get up agita-
tions—(hear)—but they have always had this obstacle to
contend with—the cause they have advocated, the measures
they have propounded, the principles on which they have
acted, and the course they have recommended have been of
such a nature that the great bulk of the population utterly
disapproved them—(oh, oh I)—and would not in any way
assist in promoting them. With regard to this very mat-
ter, surely the hon. gentleman does not wish that a great
question like this—a question so great that the noble lord
the member for the city of London says he thinks there has
scarcely been one so grave during the period of his political
life—should not be discussed by the people of a free coun-
try? (Hear.) Does the hon. member presume—does he
dare to say—is he so afraid of his own case as to say, if any
member of this house, whatever his opinions on the subject
may be, whether he takes my view of the subject
or any other, takes the liberty before any audience fairly and
openly to discuss this question, that he is not doing a ser-
vice to the people of this country in enabling them to judge
of the facts of the case and the principles on which the
House of Commons may be called on to act ? (Hear, hear.)
I should not have been dissatisfied if I had seen some more
expeditious mode adopted with reference to this question
—(hear)—but, looking to the past proceedings of the house,
so far as I have been able to examine them or make my-
self acquainted with them, I believe the course the Go-
vernment has taken is that which has been heretofore
followed in similar cases. The committee has been ap-
pointed ; it has already sat ; its sittings will probably be
continued ; next week evidence will be taken ; and in a
few days the matter, so far as it can be ascertained,
will be laid before the house. I have great con-
fidence that during that tiraethe question will be more dis-
cussed in the country, more reflected on by this house, and
if it should happen that the committee should report that
the course taken by the House of Lords has infringed upon
the just, recognised, and constitutional rights of the House
of Commons, I shOuld feel ashamed of being a member of
the House of Commons if I thought that a large majority
of the members of it would not take such steps as may ap-
pear just for the purpose of resisting any such infringement
on its rights and privileges. (Hear.) I don't think we could
commit a greater treason to every branch of the Legisla-
ture, to the Crown, to the Commons, to the House of Lords
itself than to permit a matter of this kind to be passed over
as if it were of no importance. (Hear.) I think the pos-
terity of the existing generation of Englishmen will have
reason to look back—with contempt, I will say—on the Par-
liament of 1860 if we do not thoroughly sift this question
to the bottom, and if we do not act in accordance with the
principles of the Constitution in defence of our rights and
privileges if we find they have been infringed. (Hear, hear.)
SIR HENRY RAWL INSON.

Mr. H. SEYMOUR called the attention of the house to
the state of affairs with Persia; and asked the Secretary of
State for Foreign Affairs to lay upon the table of the house
papers relating to Sir Henry Rawlinson's recal or resig-
nation.