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

in view, which was to constrain and coerce this house to
give its attention to matters of supply before matters of
grievance, and it was in order to carry that point that they
made this large admission, that they would not so much
as advise in matter of supply. The House of Lords failed
in carrying their point, and they never repeated that ad-
mission. On the contrary, they entirely withdrew it, and
in the year 1671, as well as upon subsequent occasions,
they asserted largely their right to deal with matter of
supply, sometimes in broader terms, sometimes in narrower
terms. Sometimes they said generally that they could not
be ousted of that right ; sometimes they claimed merely a
right to abate a tax; sometimes they referred in particular
to those cases in which considerations of trade were involved
and said that at any rate they were as good judges of the in-
terests of trade as were the House of Commons, bat since
1640 they never made any admission—on the contrary, in
1671 they entirely withdrew the admission which they had
mr.de—of the privileges and rights of the House of Com-
mons. Therefore, if we look at the theory of this case, the
two houses are absolutely at variance, (Hear, hear.) With
limitedexceptions, introduced into the case by recent modi-
fications of our own standing oriers, which have taken place
within the memory of some n's, the two houses are, if we
look at the question abstractedly, at absolute variance. The
Mouse of Commons claims, by it; privilege, every thing
wherein money is mentio-aed the House of Lords recog-
nising by no act of its o- iftnr'nydistinction, but also claim-
ing a legislative power 'Without limits. It is quite a mistake
to suppose that the Finuse of Lords has ever made the ad-
mission that a mor
.ear bill cannot originate there. By prac-
tice a money bill does not originate in, the House of Lords,
but there is no admission that a money bill cannot originate
there. Just, in the same way, there is no admission on the
part of the I-louse of Lords that a money bill cannot be
amender?, t 3 ore. Strange to say, some great doctors of the
censtPairton are reported to have stated on a recent occasion
that it, was a principle admitted on all hands that no money
lAl'could be amended in the House of Lords. Why, sir, on
the contrary, not only is there nothing in the rules of the
'House of Lords, so far, at least, as the researches of the
commiatee have gone, to prevent such amendment, but it is
actually the fact that the eases of amending money bills in
the House of Lords are more frequent than those in which
such bills have been rejected by that house. (Hear, hear.)
The truth is, I apprehend, that under cover of these broad
and, in themselves, perhaps, untenable and extravagant
doctrines of privilege, the House of Commons formally
claiming everything, and the House of Lords formally con-
ceding nothing—ur.aler cover of that apparent conflict,
there has been a real, and until the present time an un-
broken, harmony for 200 years. The secret of that har-
mony is that both houses by these claims, apparently so
conflicting, have meant the same thing. The House of
Commons by its privileges with respect to Money
Bills has meant to reserve to itself the integrity of
tht taxing power, and the House of Lords, by declining to
%draft the claim of the House of Commons, has intended to
Ipreserve to itself an effective means of preventing the House
of Commons from forcing upon it other matters of general i
legislation under cover of Money Bills. (Hear, hear.) I
have just made a statement wifich sounds like an authorita-
tive exposition of the practice of the constitution; but, of
course, I mean it only as an assertion which is'to be tested
by the evidence of facts and documents. Let any gentle-
Irian review the entire list of these precedents, and see
whether every one of them does not completely coincide
with the principles I have laid down. There is not, so far
as I know, a single case upon record since the present sys-
tem of taxation was established until the Paper Duties
Repeal Bill of 1860, in which the House of Lords has
attempted to interfere with the taxing function of the
House of Commons. (Cheers.) Therefore, when it is said
that we sire to maintain our essential privileges inviolate,
what I ask myself, and what I ask myself in vain, is what
are ibis essential privileges of the House of Commons which
it is intended to maintain inviolate, and which are not
violated by the rejection of the Paper Duties Repeal Bill?
(Cheers.) It appears to me that the origination of a bill
Tor the imposition of a tax, or the amendment of a money
bill, is a slight thing compared to the claim to prevent the
repeal of a tax. (Cheers,) I have said that the precedents
are entirely adverse to the step which has been taken. The
mode in which many of these pretended precedents have
exploded has really been almost ludicrous. I may refer to
one case, and it will be the only one with which I shall
trouble the house. It is the case of the Excise duty upon
stone bottles. A bill was introduced to " Repeal the Duty
upon Stone Bottles, and to grant other duties in lieu
thereof." Such was the title of the bill. It was quoted as
an instance of the House of Lords interfering to arrest the
repeal of a tax. What did that bill do ? In the first
place, it was a bill which had not a fiscal, but a political
object, that object being protection. But, besides that,
though it is true that it repealed the duty upon stone
bottles—as whenever we alter duties we always begin
with repealing them—yet it imposed upon stone bottles
a duty double that which it repealed. (Hear, hear.) It
was not a bill of repeal at all in any intelligible sense of
the term, but a bill to double the duties upon stone bottles.
(Cheers.) The precedents, I repeat, are entirely to the effect
which has been substantially stated by my noble friend ;
that is to say, they do not cover, in the substantial and es-
seutial points, the act that has now been done, because none
of them were interferences with the taxing power of this
house. Some of them were interferences with bills that had
a preamble of supply ; but these were bills which were pre-
pared for objects other than those of taxation. Taxation
was incidental; those other objects were the main pur-
poses; and the House of Lords justly declined to part with
its jurisdiction over matters of legislation and policy, on
account of the privileges of this house with respect to money.
But I am bound to say that, even if the precedents were
otherwise than they are, it seriously requires the considera-
tion of this house, whether its own essential functions are to
be maintained or not. (Cheers.) I do not deny, as re-
sponsible for the finances of the country, that the sum of
perhaps £700,000 which will be brought into the Exche-
quer by the continuance of the paper duty between the 15th
of August and the Ist of April is exceedingly acceptible,
provided it be honestly obtained. (Hear, hear, and a laugh.)
But I must confess that, although no person is more likely
than myself to be liable to the influence and seductions of
money, yet there are other things that are more valuable
even than £700,000. (Cheers.) I believe that the ques-
tion, whether the exclusive power of taxation is to rest with
the House of Commons, is a question of ten—nay, a hun-
dred—times greater importance and value than the confirm-
ante of the paper duty. (Cheers.) I have said, that there
is no instance in which, when this house has intended the
repeal of a tax, the House of Lords has interfered to arrest
it. Some gentlemen have said, that on the present occa-
sion the House of Commons was very foolish, and the House
of Lords very wise ; that the House of Commons had made
a great and undue sacrifice of public revenue, and the House
of Lords interposed to arrest the House of Commons in its
career of extravagance and improvidence. That is the alle-
gation. But, without entering at this moment into the
argument, with respect to which, however, I am prepared
to maintain all that I have maintained on previous
occasions—(cheers)—l want to know whether that really
is the constitution under which we live ? (Continued cheer-
ing.) The House of Commons cannot be infallible in
matters of finance any more than in other matters. No
doubt the House of Commons may make errors, of which I
shall give you an instance presently, but I wish to know
whether those errors in matters of finance are or are not to
be liable to correction by the House of Lords? (Cheers.) If
they are, what becomes of your privileges ? (Cheers.) Why
does the House of Lords ever differ from us ? No doubt be-
cause it thinks we have committed an error, and it can sug-
gest an improvement. That is perfectly legitimate, but the
question now raised is whether they have the power of re-
view which is exercised by the House of Lords in all mat
tars of general legislation is likewise to be extended to
finance, and whether the function of the House of Commons
in imposing and repealing taxes is to be divided as to its
exercise and the responsibility which it involves with the
House of Lords ? (Cheers.) I think this case, besides the
positive illustration of precedents, is susceptible likewise of
negative illustration. The argument is that the House of
Lords has interfered to correct the folly of the Commons in
giving away revenue which was supposed to be required
for the purposes of the year, or, rather, for the purposes of
future years, because, in point of fact, it does not seem to
have been stated that the revenue was required for the pur-
poses of the present year. It will be required, or other
money in lieu of it will be required, for the purposes of the
year, and I do not at all disguise the difficulty in which
this house is placed when it has to vindicate its privileges
and insist upon its vote on the one hand, and to receive a
considerable addition to the income of the year on the other.
But what I want to say is, that the ll:use of Lords has not
upon former occasions considered itself to be charged with
this responsibility. In 1853 a bill for the repeal of the soap
duties Was passed at a considerably later period of the see.
510 U
than the day on which the Paper Duties Bill was re-
jected. That bill was passed at a time when undoubtedly
the prospect, of the
co
of war with Russia had become with respect to the probability
such that there was very
serious alarm, and a very general belief that war would be
encountered, and that a great increase would be made to the
burdens of the country.
I
who recollect the eircumstanaenies es rtu eh
et h
monthat t, h oosfe
jgentlemen
,
will concur in the statement I have just made. If I re-
member aright, the Emperor of Russia had already occupied
the Principalities ; several debates had taken place in this
house ; considerable excitement prevailed in the üblic
mind ; various peers in another place actually urged the pro-
bability of war as a reason why the soap duties should not be
wthhiech soathpe duties
uti
feltes
repealed. I think I may say that the Gov
ment of the
day would not have proposed the repeal of
in July had it not been a proposal to
themselves pledged by their previous proceedings, and by
the sanction which the House of Commons had given to it
by its vote. But the House of Lords at that period passed
the bill for the repeal of the soap duties, and entirely de -
alined the plea which was urged even for a short delay in
the consideration of the measure. Why did the House of
Lords do that ? If I remember rightly, the right hon.
gentleman the member for Droitwich and others, exercising
the privilege of fair criticism on the acts of the Government,
complained greatly at the time of the loss of revenue. They
used just the same epithets then that we hear now. They
asked what could be more unwise, more reckless, more im-
provident, more profligate, than to part with the revenue
from the soap duties at the opening of a probable war in
Europe. Yet, although a war with Russia was likely, I
true, to /Mpg, much haaybr burdens Wm war with