The Sun.
London, England, 1860-05-26 00:00:00

nu: PAPER D UTI I, S.

(From the Times.)

The House of 'Commons has only done wha,
everybody expected, and every reasonable being
would have advised, in taking no more decisive step
on the late decision of the Lords than the appoint-
ment of a Cotainittee to inquire into precedEnts re-
lating to money bills. Of the other courses sug-
gested last night it is enough to say that they would
have been thought very ridiculous or outrageous.
According to Mr. Edwin James, inasmuch as the
house had once immediately censured a decision of
the Lords upon a bill that was not a money bill, or
at all like one, therefore it ought with equal promp-
titude to take in hand the decision of the Lords
upon a bill which, in Mr. E. James's opinion, is a
money bill, and nothing else. Mr. Duncombe pro-
posed that the house should take the Lords at their
word, and contrite that Parliament should be
found sitting in the middle of November, when, of
course, the Lords would be bound to read the bill a
second time. Mr. Bright, not being provided with
any expedient brilliant enough to compare with
this, and not seeing his way out of the difficulty,
proposed the moderate course of adjourning the
debate to next Thursday, by which time some
thirty gentlemen will have occupied the Whitsun
holidays in the preparation of long speeches. Lord
John Russell, with something like a foregone
conclusion of the result, and with some Parlia-
mentary definitions and divisions which read
like an address to a grand jury, found suffi-
cient matter for criticism in these propositions,
and gave his opinion for further inquiry. When,
however, he distinguished between Money Bills
that had a political character and those that were
merely for Supply, and assigned the Bill just re-
jected to the latter class, we can only say that he
has unwittingly contributed a new argument for
inquiry and deliberation. As nothing can be done
till Thursday, no time will be lost by the proposed
addition of two " independent" members to the
Committee on that day, and twenty-one gentlemen
enjoying the suffrages of all parties, and represent-
ing their opinions, will then be able to supply the
House with a common stock of information bearing
upon this matter. Notwithstanding the stigma of
a roving commission which Mr. Digby Seymour
has attempted to throw on the Committee, no other
course was open than to leave it the largest reason-
able field of inquiry. To limit that inquiry in such
a way as not to anticipate the result would have
cost the house needless time and trouble. As it is,
we are to have a complete view of the Parliamen-
tary theory of Money Bills, in the most compre-
hensive sense of the term.

An appeal to the common sense of the country,
as the true arbiter of the question, is no mere topic
of persuasion, and can hardly be called our own.
Mr. Bright himself wonders how it is that the
people of England most unaccountably do not care
a straw for the bill and its treatment by the Lords.
England has not been moved from its depths and
stirred from one end to the other. There has
been a mysterious meeting of delegates some-
where within the range of Mr. Duncorobe's
peculiar observation, but otherwise there has
been no more stir or expression of opinion than if
a railway bill had been lost for want of compliance
with standing orders. Mr. Bright is at a loss to
explain a fact which we will venture to say he is
the only man in England who has not taken as a
matter of course. He really does us much more
honour than we deserve, and immensely overrates
our influence, when he informs the house that it is
our sophistry that has mesmerised the nation into
this gross insensibility to its wrongs. Old-fashioned
as we are, obsolete as are our views,selfish and base
as our motives must be, mistaken in every way, we
have, nevertheless, had the power, he says, to lull
the entire ocean of British political passion into the
sweetest tranquillity. Vain the gathering of the
multitude in St. Mhrtin's-hall and provincial Town-
halls t Vain the appeal to the metropolitan Briton,
" Will you permit Lord Derby to tax you 9" A
single leader of the Times, says Mr. Bright, had
hushed the rising storm, and sung a lullaby over
the smothered indignation of thirty millions. This
is a power we frankly say we never pretended to;
we do not claim it; we do not now detect its ope-
ration ; what is more, we do not even desire it. It
would indeed be an ill day for England when it
lay at the mercy of one pen, or any hundred pens
when it either could be roused to fury by a leaded
column, or depended on that precarious interposi-
tion for its safety from downright madness. No,
Mr. Bright, we will be modest; we blush to be
so bepraised ; but we really have no right to
let this pass as our work. It is England that sees
how the truth lies, and that will not rise into revo-
lution because the Lords have exercised a sound
discretion, and thrown out an ill timed bill. The
Lords knew well that the country was with them.
The truth is that this is not a mere Money Bill,
but a political question. Otherwise, how came it
to pass that Mr. Bright, alone in the whole country,
should be anxious to thrust a million and a quarter
into the Chancellor of the Exchequer's pocket ?
That is not his wont, nor indeed is it ours. But
the gradual substitution of income tax for indirect
taxes, and the reimposition of a war tax when no
reason could be assigned for it, except to gratify
some sentimental expectations for the year 1860—
all this is a political question. Mr. Bright is aware
it has been suggested lately more than once to
raise the income-tax to a height that shall entirely
supersede indirect taxation ; to place the represen-
tation in the hands of those who do not pay the
income-tax ; and, finally, to declare the House of
Lords an anomaly in the constitution. Such pro-
posals have much more right to be considered a
whole than Mr. Gladstone's Budget, which, by the
very term, is a multitude of measures. But were
the substitution of Income-tax for Paper Duty
the only measure under consideration, we shall
be backed by all England in calling it a poli-
tical change. It is a shifting of burdens that
would certainly tell largely on the powers and
destinies of the State and the character of the
people. It is not a question of a million or
not, but whether taxation shall be levied from
this class or that class, in this form or that form.
The whole argument for the repeal of the Paper
Duty disdained the very character now asserted for
it, as a mere matter of money. It raises the ques-
tion above money. But it is also a political ques-
tion whether just now we are to leave the Exche-
quer empty, and allow millions of Exchequer-bonds
to come in one after the other, without any provi-
sion for their liquidation, except the spendthrift
trick of issuing new bonds in their place. The
whole affair is political rather than financial, and if
financial, only so for political considerations. There
is here no constitutional jealousy in question. The
Lords are not wanting to increase the power of the
Crown, and render it independent of the Lower
House. The Commons may do what they please
with the money which the Lords have obligingly
compelled them to keep in their hands. But this
is a political affair, and if the House of Lords ever
was permitted to reject a bill complicated with
political considerations, it never had a better case
for it than now.

(From the Morning Post.)
Last night, after considerable discussion, the
House of Commons appointed a select committee
" to search the journals of both Houses of Parlia-
ment in order to ascertain and report on the
practice of each house with regard to the several
descriptions of money bills imposing or repealing
taxation." It is difficult to conceive upon what
grounds a motion so reasonable and necessary in
itself should have encountered the slightest oppo-
sition. If there exist a doubt as to the right of
the House of Lords to reject a money bill, reason
would surely seem to dictate, as a necessary pre-
liminary, the institution of an inquiry, the object of
which would be to illustrate the customary law of
Parliament by the decisions of former days. Butthis
is not the opinion of Mr. Edwin times, Mr. Thomas
Duncombe, and Mr. Bright. These gentlemen de-
sire to provoke a conflict between the two Houses in
relation to a subject which excites no public interest
at a time when, from want of information, no per-
son can venture to assert with confidence that the
House of Lords has exceeded its privileges. Mr.
Duncombe, who, like all extreme Liberals, is a great
stickler for the political supremacy of the House of
Commons, proposed an amendment, Which, if ac-
cepted, would altogether have ignored one of the
imost important and well-defined prerogatives of the
Crown. The hon. gentleman says the Lords luiTe

only postponed the second reading of the Paper
Duties Bill for six months—therefore Parliament
ought not to be adjourned beyond November next,
" when a further opportunity would be afforded to
the House of Lords for consickring whether the said
bill might not then be advantageously agreed to."
In other words, the House of Commons is to dictate
to the Sovereign the time at which Parliament is to
meet, and also to tell the House of Lords that, after
six months' stipendiary agitation, Mr. Dancombe
hopes that the public mind will become sufficiently
angry and excited to act upon and co:Tee the Upper
House. No indications of such a characterare yet ap-
parent out of doors, and in the House of Cornea-ms
the general tone last night was firm and respectful
to the Peers, and at the same time consistent
with the dignity and independence of the represen-
tatives of the people. Mr. Bright adopted a line of
opposition similar in character, hut not so dilatory
and unconstitutional in its effects. He i r )posed to
adjourn the discussion to next Thursday, when the
house will reassemble after the Whitsuntide recess.
But Mr. Bright must surely forget that such a
course would delay, if not defeat, the object which
he professes to have in view. He holds the opinion
that the House of Lords has overstepped its privi-
lege, and be wishes the Commons to come to this
conclusion. The question whether it be regarded
as one of customary law or of principle cannot be
decided without investigation and inquiry. If it
should turn out that Mr. Bright's contention is
right, then the recourse to precedents will sustain
and fortify his argument—one which at present
rests upon no foundation beyond rash assertion—
and the House of Commons would have compara-
tively little difficulty in establishing its exclusive
privilege to originate, amend, and pass money bills.
We, however, are inclined to suspect that if such
a resolution were come to the veto of the Sovereign,
which in modern times has been rarely exercised,
would form the next point of attack. The mode-
ration and good sense of the house were too mani-
festly displayed in favour of inquiry to give either
Mr. Thomas Duncombe or Mr. Bright the slightest
chance of success, and therefore those gentlemen
wisely permitted Lord Palmerston's motion to be
carried, merely with the addition of two members
taken from below the gangway, making the num-
ber of the committee twenty-one instead of nine-
teen.

Of course it is premature to speculate upon the
results of the inquiry, but we may be permitted to
express the opinion that it will leave the question
exactly where it stands at present. Hatsell, in deal-
ing with the exclusive right of the Commons to
grant aids and taxes to the Cl own, says—" In
whatever mode the Lords have at any time at-
tempted to invade this right, the Commons have
uniformly and rigorously opposed the attempt ;
and have asserted and maintained this claim
through such a long and various course of prece-
dents, particularly from the time of the Restora
tion to the beginning of this century, that the
lords have desisted either from beginning any bill,
or making amendments to bills passed by the
Commons, which, either, in the form of positive
taxes or pecuniary penalties, or in any other shape,
might, by construction, be considered as imposing
burdens upon the people." If the Lords, ex eon-
cessis, cannot originate or amend money bills—and
as we all know as a matter of fact that no measure
of any kind can become law without the consent of
the three branches of the Legislature—the con-
clusion is irresistible that as the Lords have the
power of assent they must also possess the con-
verse or correlative right of rejection.. What
discretionary jurisdiction is the Upper House to
have in relation to this species of legislation if
it is simply to register the financial edicts of
the Commons ? We believe that, when all the
precedents which are to be found in thej ournals
have been ransacked, no case can be produced
which will support the views of Mr. Bright and
his two coadjutors, Mr. Thomas Duncombe and Mr.
Edwin James. The inquiry is judicial in its nature,
one necessarily dependent upon precedent and
authority, and must therefore be pursued, as Lord
J. Russell last night remarked, "in the beaten
paths of the constitution." Happily no party in-
terest is involved in the question, and happily the
public have no desire to witness a wholly unneces-
sary conflict between the two branches of the
Legislature. The sooner the dispute is allowed to
subside the better opportunity will the opponents
of the paper duties have of obtaining the object
which they so loudly and so zealously profess to
have at heart.

(From the liforning Herald.)
Last night's brief discussion on the practice of
Parliament in regard to bills for imposing or repeal-
ing taxation was not of a nature to inspire Mr.
Bright with any new hope of collision and disturb-
bance. It was scarcely to be expected, after all the
nonsense that has been talked about the violation
of the rights of the Lower House, that a Liberal
Premier should not take some step to save his cre-
dit ; and we do full justice to Lo,ed Palmerston's
sagacity in adopting a course which commits him
to no result and which is admirably calculated to
satisfy the amour propre of the Commons, at the
same time that it avoids any attack upon the dig-
nity of the Peers. It may suit the metropolitan
members to raise a great cry about the alleged in-
sult to popular sovereignty ; but as in this instance
popular clamour seems to be principally confined to
a portion of the press pecularly interested in obtaining
cheap paper, the backers of our modern Hampdens
are likely to be very few in number, and we antici-
pate no dangerous results from the serious auguries
with which they seek to awe the country. Moreover,
Mr. Bright and his friends have once more found
themselves thoroughly unpractical. Mr. Duncombe
moved an amendment which was prima facie
too absurd to be seriously considered, but which
certainly far surpassed the resolution of the Lords
in confidence and audacity, and deservedly called
down the remonstrance of that lover of the consti-
tution, Lord John Russell. Mr. Blight was still
more impracticable in moving the adjournment of
the debate, although all that Lord Palmerston asked
for was a committee of inquiry, as if the five days
that elapse between yesterday and next Thursday
would bring down the haughty Peers on their
knees at the feet of the Lower House, or as if Lord
Palmerston himself would by that time have been
inspired by the encouragement of the cheap press
to throw down the gauntlet before the Lords, and
completely play the demagogue's game by kindl;ng
a dangerous agitation. What, in fact, could Mr.
Bright propose ? We have had hints of his inten-
tions from the columns of his great ally in the press,
and we should probably, under his auspices, have
found ourselves committed to a hopeless breach
between the Lords and Commons, which could only
have resulted in perilling the authority of both.
As it is, the choice of the committee saving the
presence of Mr. Bright, induces a reasonable belief
in its impartiality, and we have too much respect
for the judgment of the House of Commons not to
infer that it will find means to set the question at
rest without the slightest regard to the interested
protests of the member for Birmingham. Strictly
speaking, all doubt about the privileges of the
House of Lords was removed by Lord Lyndhurst's
speech—that great authority who was extolled
with all the eulogistic powers of Mr. Bright's organ
on the one day, and denounced with all the depth
of its abuse the next. But something it was ne-
cessary to do in order to bind up the wounds of the
Birmingham demagogue, and to soothe the fiery
indignation of the Chancellor of the Exchequer.
The committee, on the whole very fairly chosen, is
not likely to perpetuate the feeling of jealousy that
now exists. Mr. Bright knows this, and is furious.
But in proportion to his disappointment will be the
satisfaction of every prudent politician and every
lover of peace and order.

(From the Daily News.)

The short debate in the House of Commons last
night on Lord Palmerston's motion for a committee
to inquire into precedents as to the control of money
bills would tend to reassure those who had begun
to fear that both the house and the Government
were disposed to treat a great constitutional ques•
tion in a careless and perfunctory m►►uner. That
this feeling existed and was daily becoming more
deep and general, is unquestionable. The petitions
Mr•. Bright presented last night from several places
in Lancashire illustrate the rising wave of popular
dissatisfaction and alarm at the apparent apathy
of the Commons. The prayer of these petitions is,
"that the house will preserve its privilege and pre-
rogative of determining the taxation of the coun-
try." No such petitions as these have been pre-
sented to Parliament in our time., or in that of our
forefathers for many generations. Indeed there has
rarely been any necessity to quicken the zeal of the
house on such a point. It has usually shown itself
keenly alive to its privileges, and prompt and ener-
getic in defending them. Any appearance of luke-
warmness, therefore, on such a vital question of
privilege as the right of taxation would naturally
tend to rouse the watchful jealousy of the country.
There is no doubt that this feeling would have
been spread far more generally had not the two
questions raised by the vote of the Lords on Mon-
day night, been espacially at first very much mixed
up and cofounded iu the public mind. The mare