The Sun.
London, England, 1860-05-22 00:00:00

THE SUN, LONDON, TUESDAY EVENING, MAY 22, 1860,

been incessantly taunted with the mistake he made as to the
amount which the succession duty would produce. My
right hon. friend was not alone in his expectationsof a large
return from the succession tax, because the noble lord him-
self proved by figures and details that that impost would
extract from the pockets of the unfortunate landowners a
sum of £4,000,000 sterling per annum, or much more than
double the amount which it has actually yiellee. (Hear.)
In his speech on the Customs Duties Bill, on the 22d of
June, 1846, the noble lord said—

" I am about to deal with this measure chiefly on the score
of revenue, for I beg your lordships to observe that you
have at this moment a calculation of only a very small sur-
plus revenue, even with things as they are, for the service
of the current year; and if the calculations respecting the
revenue which I have made are accurate (and I have taken
every pains they should be so), those who are in office this
time 12 months, whoever they may be, will be in great dan-
ger of experiencing a deficiency in the revenue. Yet, my
lords, it is under these circumstances that the Government
think it wise and politic to introduce a bill for the purpose
of reducing or repealing the duties on numerous most im-
portant articles. Duties altogether repealed, £55,879; a
reduction of duties by one-half on articles producing a re-
venue of £2,326,000, £1,283,121; duties on corn, £400,000.
I am aware that a certain increase in the consumption will
make up part of the loss, but that there will be a serious
defalcation of revenue arising from the reductions proposed
by this bill will readily be admitted on the part of Govern-
ment themselves."

That was spoken by the noble earl opposite in 1846, and
what is the answer to be given to it ? On the 22d of
February the then Chancellor of the Exchequer said—
" The right hon. gentleman who preceded me in office
made his financial statement on the 9th of May last year.
He stated that he anticipated a surplus from the ordinary
revenue of £76,000, and from extraordinary sources=
namely, money from China, of £700,000, making a total of
£776,000. By subsequent legislation foreign sugar was made
admissible into the country, and in nine months, from April
to December, the duty paid on the foreign sugar imported
amounted to £304,000. That, of course, is an item which
the right hon. gentleman could not calculate upon when he
made his financial statement, but adding the sum derived
from the sugar duties to that which the right hon. gentle-
man anticipated, it would give a surplus of only about a
million of money. If, however, hon. gentlemen will refer
to the balance-sheet of the sth of January, they will find
that the produce of the revenue far exceeds this calculation,
for the surplus amounts to £2,846,000. The produce of the
revenue since the sth of January has exceeded again, be-
yond all expectation, the produce of the corresponding
quarter, and I think the probability is that I should be fully
justified in stating that when the period comes to which the
calculations of the right hon. gentleman referred his calcu-
lations will be still more exceeded, and that the surplus of
the sth of April will be even still more considerable than
that which I have stated as the surplus on the sth of
January."

I say, then, that the noble lord, when he comes forward as
the head of the great Conservative party and proposes to
support the motion of the noble baron, by which this house
will in effect take upon itself the financial duties that pro-
perly belong to the executive Government and the House
of Commons, surely ought to show that he has some fitness
for the task. (Hear, hear.) The same noble lord, I find,
stated to the deputation, " We know nothing with regard
to the vestion of any substitute at all. I was not aware that
this repeal was taken as a substitute for any tax which
was imposed. It is part of the general financial statement
made by the Government, but I have never seen in any
quarter, anil certainly not before the House of Lords, any
proposal of an alternative tax." My lords, it seems per-
fectly incredible that the noble earl, taking these duties
upon himself, should not appear to read the debates of
the House of Commons upon those matters of finance
which we are to correct, and should not even be informed
by his political friends in that house that motions were made
there by Conservative members and supported by all the
Conservative leaders, but which were rejected after long
debate by a decisive division. (Hear.) I now come to a more
extraordinary statement of the noble lord. He is reported to
have assigned, as a reason for not giving up the paper duty,
that it is not a declining but an increasing tax. I should
really like to have an explanation from the noble earl Upon
this point. Does he not know that every Excise duty which
has been repealed of late years was an increasing, not a de-
clining duty ? Or does he mean to say that the course we
have taken in all these cases, which has, I think, been so
fruitful of benefit to the country, was a wrong course, and
one that ought not to be followed by any further remissions
of the same kind ? In his address to the deputation the
noble earl said :

" But you must allow me to recall to your recollection
that when in 1858 or 1859 (I forget which it was), I made
use of the expressions to which reference has been made by
Mr. Sergeant Parry, and when Mr. Disraeli in the same
year, as Chancellor of the Exchequer, assented to a resolu-
tion of the House of Commons, stating that this was, in
point of principle, an objectionable tax, we, at the same time,
objected to a further resolution which was proposed to be
added to it—namely, that the financial arrangements of the
country should be made in such a manner as to enable that
tax to be forthwith taken off, or cone words similar to those,
and that that was a year in which, having considerable
means at our disposal, we preferred reducing the income
tax, and we preferred reducing the tea and sugar duties.
We thought that the reduction of those two taxes was more
important than the taking off of the paper duties, and we
gave a preference to those two, and under those circum-
stances declined to take off the paper duties."
Now, Hansard is a book often consulted by your lordships
—(a laugh)—for we have many copies of it in our library ;
and if we resort to that authority we shall find that in

that year Mr. Disraeli, the Chancellor of the Exchequer
of the noble earl's Government, made a long financial
statement, the pith of which was shortly this—that instead
-of having a large surplus the Government had a deficiency,
and a deficiency of how much ? Why, of Ll,ooo,ooo—(hear,
hear)—and instead of reducing the tea and sugar duties,
they borrowed a sum of money in order to meet that large
deficiency; they repealed certain acts of Parliament entail-
ing on them the obligation of their repaying other sums ;
and they also raised the duties on Irish spirits, on checks,
and st imps—the whole yielding them at the most an esti-
mated surplus not so great as that which the noble earl
thinks so small when it figures in Mr. Gladstone's budget.
(Hear, hear.) After that, I think the noble earl is really out
of court in advising your lordships to take a safe and pru-
dent step in financial matters. I believe there are on this
side of the house noble lords eminently fitted to deal with
financial questions, and no doubt there are noble lords oppo-
site who possess the same qualifications, although I am not
so well acquainted with them. But there must be others
who have come up to-day from the extreme end of the king-
dom, and who are too attached to hunting, literature, and
other pursuits that are best carried on in the country to at-
tempt to master the principles or the details of finance.
These noble lords, knowing the vast information and expe-
rience of the noble earl opposite upon all other matters, may
think it perfectly safe on this occasion to put their con-
sciences in his hands. But if the noble earl's prophecies, as
nobody will deny, have always failed—if his knowledge of

finance is of the most limited description—if, indeed, that
subject is so repugnant to his capacious and well-stored
mind that ho cannot for two consecutive years remember,
but, on the contrary, jumbles and confuses together all the
fa is and figures of his own department as Prime Minister
and First Lord of the Treasury, then I think he places
noble lords on his own side in a difficult and even false po-
tion in respect to how they are to vote to-night. (Hear.)
Nly lords, I believe the amendment of which notice has
been given is not in accordance with the spirit of the con-
stitution; nor do I think it consistent with the dictates
either of justice or wisdom. I shall very briefly state the
grounds of my opinion. The greatest of our debates since I
have had the honour of sitting in this house was one in
which a noble and learned lord, whom we all rejoice to see
as strong and vigorous now as then, took a leading part in
advising your lordships as to the course you should adopt.
(Hear, hear.) That noble and learned lord then laid
down the principles of constitutional law, and those
principles were sanctioned by this house. I of
course allude to the discussion on the question of life
peerages. (" Hear, hear," from the Earl of Derby.) He

told us it was of no use going back to ancient precedents—
it was of no use telling us that Coke and Blackstone and
other learned authors laid down the law of the subject in
the most distinct manner. They were of no authority.
We must come to the usage and practice of the constitution
since it has been defined and settled in its best days—viz.,
from the date of the revolution downwards. Well, this
house adopted that reasoning. It is unnecessary, there-
fore, now to quote any learned writers. I myself rather re-
gret this, because the other day I took occasion to read
Blackstone, Hatsell, and Hallam. I did not find anything
that really applied exactly to bhe case. I found they all
admit the real technical power of rejecting a money bill. I
found they go further, and speak of the unreasonable ex-
tent of the jealousy of the House of Commons at small and
trifling alterations. This showed more than any rule the
usage and custom of the House of Commons. They also
give as a reasonable ground of jealousy on the part of the
House of Commons that this house could not originate a
tax or indirectly charge the people of this ceentry. If,
then,,you cannot tax the cemrannity, I cannot see how by
rejecting a bill for the remission of a tax you don't practi-
cally charge the people. I know there may be a technic&
difficulty, but as to the spirit of the thing, I conceive, if
you adopt the noble lord's advice to-night, you will to all
intents and purposes impose a burden on the people. The
legal technical right of rejecting I don't deny. The very
preamble of the bill shows it. The question being put four
times to your lordships house shows it. Legally and tech-
nically the Crown may reject a bill passed by the other two
branches of the Legislature. That, to a certain degree, is
guarded by the responsibility of the Minister. The Crown
undoubtedly has the technical right and prerogative to
create 100 peers to coerce this house ; but for the Crown to
exercise that right would be a gross and flagrant violation of
the constitution. The House of Commons has, I should also
say, by the power of stopping the supplies, a right to coerce
both this house and the Crown ; but in all these instances the
power is tempered by constitutional usage, it is tempered by
prudence. In every one of these instances, not excepting that
under consideration, it has been tempered by usage and cus-
tom. The noblebaron, I know, will produce certain meagre
precedents with regard to the rejection of bills certainly
affecting taxation and trade of one kind or another, but are
these at all equal to what he proposes to-day ? He proposes
now, on mere fiscal grounds as I understand;to reject a bill
repealing taxation forming part of the financial scheme sub-
mitted by the officers of the Crown, and therefore, with the
consent of the Crown, to the House of Commons, and
adopted by that house. I say, I know of no precedent for
the rejection of a bill remitting taxation, or even revising
taxation, which formed part of a whole financial scheme so
approved and recommended. If the noble baron can produce
such a precedent, I hope he will do so. My lords, even if I

were to grant, for the sake of argument, that the noble lord
is not only technically and legally right, but that in propos-
ing, such an unusual course to your lordships he is within
the pale of the constitution, I ask, is the course ha proposes
a just one ? Is it just to the people of the country when a
remission of burdens affecting trade and industry is pro-
posed by the Government and assented to by the House of
Commons—is it just to the people after the remission and
imposition of taxation have been balanced, to saddle them
with additional taxation ? I had a letter from a very intel-
ligent tradesman from the tewn of Carmarthen, who stated
that the tax on the paper he consumed would more than
enable him to pay his income-tax. He was well satisfied
with the budget, and hoped by his savings to be able to
drink a little cheap French wine, but he was now to be ex-
posed to a double tax. I will tell you another set of indivi-
duals to whom the conduct recommended by the noble earl is
unjust—l mean the Board of Inland Revenue. Is it fair to
gentlemen on whom you impose the financial administration
of affairs, on whom the whole onus of the collection of taxes
depends, is it fair to impose on them the administration of a
law which they cannot thoroughly recommend, and which if
carried out must be unjust and unequal to a large portion of
the taxpayers ? 1 say it is not just. Then, is it wise in your
lordships, of all branches of the Legislature—admitting the
constitutional right, is it wise to take the people by surprise
as much as you htve taken them ? You have taken them
by surprise, but—perhaps that comes more under the head
of justice than of wisdom—is it fair to persons in every
branch of_ the paper and publishing trade, who in the usual
course of proceeding have embarked in contracts on the
faith of this measure having passed the House of Com-
mons, and who will lose not hundreds but thousands
by the purchase of s earn engines and land on which to ex-
tend their factories, as well as in numerous contracts both
at home and abroad ? My, lords, I think the injustice to
these men will be great indeed. It almost appears a case in
which, from changes in our revenue system, compensation
should ensue. Then, with respect to any real public objects
proposed by the noble lord, in the consolidation of the
finances for the- present or the future, is this:a wise proceed-
ing ? The principle has always been to limit to the smallest
possib e space the inconvenience arising from any change
in our system of taxation affecting the whole commercial
and industrial world. As soon as the House of Commons
declared their opinion in favour of the remission of any ens
toms duty it ceased ; and these papermakers and publishers
having proceeded on the faith of the House of Commons,
3 our lordships in agreeing with the noble lord will now be
disturbing all confidence in the decisions of the House of
Commons, and it will be impossible for the Government to
propose the most beneficent improvements in taxation, with-
out our whole merchants, manufacturers, and tradesmen
being kept in a state of anxiety and suspense two or three
months longer than they might otherwise have been. With
regard to revenue, is it perfectly wise to put yourself in op-
position to the. House of Commons ? I sincerely hope the
House of Commons will show the utmost moderation and
temper with regard to the interests of everybody in view of
any decision to which your lordships may come to-night ;
but is it wise to take an unusual and exceptional course
and to trust entirely to the moderation and temper of the
Commons that no evil results shall arise ? The House of
Commons will be placed in great difficulty, and to this I
would call the special attention of the noble earl opposite.
You by this act to-night certainly take an unusual course;
and if there was anything wanted to make this more unpa-
latable to the House of Commons, I think you have it in the
speech of the noble earl to the deputation upon this subject.
The noble earl talks of permanent taxation, and he says :
" When you state that refusing the repeal of a duty is
equivalent to the imposition of a new tax, and when,
further, I think I caught the expression in the address of a
loose practice having prevailed of passing duties for a term
o f years, definite and indefinite, I must protest, in the first
place, against that being termed a loose practice which has
been brought in, because it is a practice which, if it were
disregarded, would destroy the very essence of our consti-
tution." • ,

(Hear, hear.) That the noble earl should cheer that ob-
servation I can understand, but that the house should cheer
it utterly takes me by surprise. (Hear, and a laugh.) This
is no laughing matter. The noble earl goes on to state :
" There are certain great departments to be maintained,
certain great services to be performed, which it is absolutely
essential should not depend upon the annual ♦ote of Parlia •
m. nt, and which the Lords and Commons, feeling together
that they ought not so to depend, have placed out of their
own power and have passed permanent acts for supplying
the means of defraying the expenses of those departments,
and have also provided that the appropriation to these de-
partments shall not be interfered with by animal vote."
What does that mean ? It means that you are to take away
the right of the Commons to stop the supplies.. I hope the
noble earl will take the opportunity in his speech to-night
of explaining this part of his address. There is, my lords.
another view of our position which may very properly be
taken in dealing with this great question—l allude to the
internal state of the country. That is, lam happy to say,
a topic which we can dwell upon with satisfaction, for never
did greater order never did greater tranquillity prevail
throughout the land than at the present moment. (Hear.)
At no period, I may add, did a greater degree of soundness
manifest itself in her trade, her agriculture, and her manu-
factures, while she is as I speak rich with the glorious pro-
mise of future production. The employment of the poorer
classes, too, is in a state the most satisfactory, causing the
diminution of poverty and crime. What ground for finan-
cial alarm is there, I should like to know, to be found in
auch a position of affairs ? None ; and I shall not mince the
matter, but shall take it for granted that many among your
lordships look with some anxiety to foreign countries, and
see certain signs in Europe which you think may possibly
lead to war, and to complications which may result in drag-
ging England into the contest. You take this view, and you
seek to make due provision against the contingency which
you apprehend. Heaven forbid, my lords, that I should give
expression to a syllable which would tend to encourage
such an apprehension in the slightest degree, but if, unhap-
pily, such a consummation as that to which I allude should
arrive, what, lot me ask, would be the best position in which
we could stand to meet its approach ? Which would be
more desirable, that its advent should find the two Houses
of Parliament acting with cordiality together, without a
particle of jealous feeling towards one another, under their
beloved Sovereign, directing in unison the energies of the
wealthiest and the most public-spirited nation, on earth, or
that it should come upon us,at a moment when a series of
recriminations between the two branches of the Legislature
had sprung up—and nobody can tell how soon they might
under a certain state of things break out—affording a scan-
dalous spectacle to the other nations of Europe ? (Hear.)
Do you suppose, my lards, that you would in the latter case
find yourselves in a better position either to carry on diplo-
macy or to pros. cute war than you would in the former,
even though you had to aid you s me. few hundred thou-
sand pout ds extracted from a tax which no one among us
desires to see permanent, and which is now seriously dam-
aged as a source of revenue. (Hear, hear.) There is one
other consideration which I would suggest to your lord-
ships' notice before I sit down. Is it wise for yourselves
or for the interests of this house—which I believe stands as
high now in popular favour and esteem as it did at any pe-
riod of iI s existence—to take the course which the noble
earl opposite asks you to pursue ? One great proof my lords,
that I am right in saying you hold such a position in public
opinion is to be found in the fact that no writing, speech, or
declaration hostile in spirit to this house can be made that
the attack does not immediately fall flat to the ground, being
devoid of any substantial foundation. (Hear.) Is it prudent,
then, for your own sakes to afford what in accordance with
my view might be construed into a reasonable ground of
complaint against you, and to do that which in accordance
with the view of almost every one among us must appear
to be calculated to furnish food for declamation to those
who may seek to injure this branch of this Legislature as
one of the institutions of the realm ? It was, I think, Mr.
Burke, who said that one of the most critical and invidious
functions which the House of Commons had to discharge
was to originate the whole weight of taxation, inasmuch
as its hand was felt and seen in every burden that pressed
upon the people. This system has, however, hitherto
worked well, connecting as it does taxation with represen-
tation. Would it be wise for your lordships to introduce
a new system, and to have your hand, instead of that of
the House of Commons, felt in every burden which presses
upon the people ? (Hear.) My lords, I have done. It re-
mains for me simply to thank you for your unexampled
kindness and indulgence, and to ass are you that the obser-
vations which I have just offered to you have been made
with feelings as earnest and sincere as by which I have at
any period of my life been animated, and with a strong
hope that your lordships may see the expediency, indepen-
dent of all party considerations, of avoiding, by your deci-
sion to-night, the occurrence of a state of things the direct
or indirect consequences of which it is impossible for any
one among us to predict. (Loud cheers.)
Lord LYNDHURST—The noble lord who has just
spoken, my lords, has done me the honour to refer to what
fell from me on a former occasion, but I trust that I shall
before I sit down be able to satisfy your lordships that the
remarks to which he alludes have no bearing upon the pre-
sent case. I hope, therefore, I may be allowed, even at this
early stage of the argument—not proposing to myself to
enter.intothe whole question under discussion, confining

myself to the preliminary and most important question
the privileges of this as contrasted with the other House of
Parliament—to trespass for a short time on that indulgence
which you usually exhibit to those who address you on sub-
jects of this nature. (Hear.) There can, my lords, be no
party question—no possible party question—involved in the
consideration of the privileges of your lordships' house. All
we have to do in dealing with the subject is to ascertain
what those privileges are, and then 'to act in accordance
with the conclusion on the point at which we may arrive.
The noble earl opposite alluded in the course of his speech
to some meeting which took place lately, and which was
presided over by a great number of the members of the other
House of Parliament. (Earl Granville said he had not
spoken of the meeting to which the noble lord referred.)
My noble friend has not alluded to the meetikg, but he bas
alluded to its results. (Hear, hear.) That meeting was, I
repeat, presided Over by several members of the House of
Commons, and what, let me ask, were the doctrines which
were there laid down ?° The doctrine, my lords, that for
this house to reject a money bill was an invasion of the
privileges of the other branch of the Legislature, and an in-
fraction of the rights of the people. Not satisfied with that
statement, those who addressed the meeting declared.snch,a
proceeding to be an insult to the monarchy. I believe also
that at that meeting, or at some other of a similar character,

a member of the House of Commons who has great influence
with certain classes of the people of this country told his
audience that the amendment of which my noble friend op-
posite (Lord Monteagle) has given notice is an insult to the
other House of Parliament. Under these circumstances, my
lards, I have felt it to be my duty—l hope not with impro-
priety, having on more than one occasion presided over your
lordships' deliberations, in which position it fell within my
province to examine into and to make myself as far as pos •
sible master of the question of the privileges of this house—
to lay before you the conclusions on the subject at which I
have arrived. (Hear.) You must not, however, for one
moment suppose that I assume to myself any authority in
dealing with this important question. I have no intention
or desire to dogmatise with respect to it. I shall simply do
that which 1 have doge on a former occasion—lay before
you as plainly as I can the facts, the principles, the autho-
rities, and the precedents with which, in connexion with
this point, I am acquainted, leaving your lordships—with-
out any doubt as to the conclusion to which you will come
—to form your own epinion upon the matter. Now, it is
in the first place, molt desirable in such a discussion to get
rid of all those points in regard to which no doubt exists.
I do not dispute—ncr can it be for a moment disputed—
that we have no right whatsoever to amend what is called a
money bill. We hate, moreover, no right whatsoever to
originate a bill of thst nature: Formerly, indeed, and for
many years, a very sharp controversy took place between
the two Houses of Parliament as to the existence of the
right to which I refer. From the time of the Restoration
to a considerable period after the Revolution there were
cases in which this louse exercised the right of amending
money bills b. oughtup from the other House of Parliament
with little or no dispute on the point. Controversies, in-
deed, sometimes toot place which were carried on with no
small degree of acrimony. All the cases- on the subject are
to be found collected in the third volume of Mr. Hatsell,
who I may fairly represent as being the advocate of the
privileges of the House of Commons. I may observe that
the result was that this house abandcned the
claim. Why ? Because they had no power to en-
force it. If we amended a bill which was sent up from the
other House of Parliament, the House of Commons had the
power of rejecting that amendment. With them the blll
originated, and it was idle for us, therefore, to insist on the
right to amend it. But that principle does not apply to the
rejection of Money Bills. (Hear, hear.) There is not an in-
stance to be found in which the House of Commons has
controverted our right to reject Money Bills. Over and
over again, I repeat it, nothing can be found in the Parlia-
mentary journals or in any history of Parliamentary pro-
ceeding to show that our right to reject Money Bills has
been denied. (Hear, hear.) There is a curious anecdote
to be found in Roger North's " Examen," which bears upon
the point. A Money Bill came up from the other house,
in which there was supposed to be something or other in-
formal or improper. There was a payment to be made of
some money on account of the past year, and great diffi-
culty existed as to what course should be taken. Roger
North, who knew well the privileges of both houses, states
that it put the House of Lords in a dilemma. He says we
could not mend the least punctilio in a Money Bill, but he
admits distinctly in terms that we had a clear right to throw
it out altogether, although we did not like to exercise that
right, because we were afraid that a similar bill would not
come up, and we were anxious to pass the bill. They got
out of the dilemma in rather a curious way. After two
days' discussion, some noble lord, a little behind the seenes
apparently, asked to see the bill, to have it laid on the table,
and when it was produced it was found perfectly correct,
and the house passed it at once. Still I don't mean to rely
on the authority of Roger North, well acquainted though
he was with the privileges of both houses ; but before going
to the authorities which established those privileges, I will
consider the arguments and authorities of those persons
who oppose our privileges. I find there is a resolution
quoted of the House of Commons in 1671, which I will read
to your lordships. On a bill for an imposition on foreign
commodities tho Commons resolved,—
" That in all aids given to the King by the Commors
the rate or tax ought not to be altered."

Your lordships don't dispute it. (Hear, hear.) That is an
authority on which our adversaries rely. (Hear, hear.)
Another authority on which they rely is a resolution of the
Commons in 1678, which I will also read to your lordships.
On the 3d of July in that year they resolved :

" That all aids and supplies and aids to His Majesty in
Parliament are the sole gift of the Commons, and all Bills
for the :granting of any such aids and supplies ought to
begin with the Commons, and that it is the undoubted and
sole right of the Commons to direct, limit, and appoint in
such Bills the ends' purposes, considerations, conditions,
limitations, and qualifications of such grants, which ought
not to be changed or altered by the House of Lords."
These are the two authorities which are relied upon by the
adversaries of our privileges, and they deduce from them
that the Lords have no power to reject Money Bills. These
authorities say that we have no right to amend a Money
Bill, and that we have no right to priginate a Money Bill,
and, by a curious kind of logic,'they conclude that we have,
therefore, no right to reject a bill of that kind. That is a
logic peculiar to theniselves, which certainly would not meet
with the approbation of the great Stagyrite. (Hear, bear.)
But whatll complain of is thig,—l complain of tae want of
fairness, the want of candour,—l won't say of honesty, be-
cause that is too strong a word (a laugh), displayed in
quoting these passages, and omitting to quote others which
are to be found in the self-same book, and which lead, as
far as inference can lead, to directly the opposite conclu-
sion. (Hear, hear.) Is this fair ? Is this candid ? Can
you place any reliance upon persons who adopt this style
of argument ? (Cheers.) In fact, it is destructive to the
case which they endeavour to set up. (Hear, hear.) In
the very book whence the quotations I have read are drawn
you will find what lam now about to read. In 1689, one
of the best periods in our history, the Lords amended a
Money Poll Bill, I believe. The Commons disa-
greed, and desired a conference, giving their reasons for
that conference. In their reasons, which are stated with
the utmost elaboration, with the utmost minuteness, and
with a kind of superabundance of words which seems to
show that they meant to sweep everything into their net,
they admit in the ;most unqualified manner, not only the
power but the right, the constitutional right, a right equal
to that of the :House of .Commons, to reject Money Bills
when they think proper, and when they think the interests
of the country require it. (Hear, hear:) I defy any person
at all acquainted with the law and constitution of this
country to entertain a different opinion after having sifted
and examined the subject even in a superficial manner.
(Hear.) I have some scruple in reading the reasons stated
by the House of Commons, on account of the superabun-
dance of words, but still they will show hoW earnest the
Commons were on the subject, how eager they were to
state their own privileges, and then you will bee the value
of the admission they make as to the authority of this house.
On the 9th of May, 1689, they sent up their reasons for de-
sing a conference on the amendment of the Poll Bill by the
Lords. Among them are the following—and this extract,
I beg your lordships to observe, is taken from the same
book as those I read before, which are relied on by our ad-
versaries:—
" All money aids and taxes to be raised or charged upon
the subjects in Parliament are the gift' and grant of the
Commons in Parliament, and are and always have been,
and ought to be, by the constitution and ancient course and
laws of Parliament, and by the ancient and undoubted
rights of the Commons of England, the sole and entire gift.
grant, ani present of the Commons in Parliament, and to
be laid, rated, raised and paid, levied and returned for the
public service and use of the Government, as the Commons
shall direct, limit, and appoint, and modify the same. And
the Lords are not to alter such gift, grant, limitation, ap-
pointment, or modification of the Commons in any part or
circumstance."
Nothing can be more full, nothing more precise, than this
phraseology ; nothing can show greater anxiety to state
what their rights are. (Hear.) So far 'they are not dis-
puted by your lordships; and then the extract goes on :
" Or otherwise to interpose in such bil s, than to pass or
reject the same for the whole, without any alteration or
amendment, though in ease of the subjects."
(Cheers.) Nothing can be more distinct than this admis-
sion, they state their own rights forcibly, and they state the
exception in favour of the Lords with equal force and pre •
cision, but not with equal abundance of words. (A laugh.)
But they don't stop there. They go on, and use a kind of
simile :

"As the Kings 'and Queens, by the laws and constitu-
tions of Parliament, are to take all, or to leave all, in such
gifts, grants, and presents from the Commons, and cannot
take part, and leave part, so are the Lords to pass all or
reject all, without diminution or alteration."
This is not an admission of power;but of a right—(cheers)—
an admission by the Commons of a constitutional right of
this house. And it is to be lamented that those gentlemen
who contend against the privileges of this house, and who
have quoted certain passages from this very work, had not
the fairness to cite the one I have now read, which is to be
found in the very next page to that from which their ex-
tracts were taken. (Cheers) I have another of a some-
what earlier date,—the year 1671. And it is remarkable
that the very document which I have just read should have
been founded on the proceedings to which I am now about
to call your lordships' attention; so that in reading the case
which they have quoted they must have had this very docu-
ment before them. (Hear.) A bill for an inquisition en
foreign commodities came up from the House of Commons,
was amended by the Lords, and the Commons rejected the
amendments, A conference was demanded, and the pro-
ceeding were continued for several successive days. Now,
mark what took place. Your lordships maintained it to be
for the happiness of the constitution that the two houses
should mutually be checks on each other. What was the
answer of the Commons ? "So they aro still," they said, "for
your lordships have a negative to the whole." (Hear, hear.)
There is a marked admission on the part of the other house.
Another part of the argument was, " If the Lords may
deny the whole, why not a part ? Else the Commons may
at last pretend to bar a negative voice." The reply of the
Commons bears on the present question :—"The King must
den, the whole of every bill or pass it; yet this does not
take away his negative voice—why should it take away
yours ?" (Loud cheers.) My noble friend on Saturday re
ceived a deputati.n, which at great length and with marvel-
ous audacity endeavoured to dissuade him from opposing
this bill. But they took nothing by their motion. (Laughter
and cheers.) And when, as they were about to retire, one
more pugnacious than the rest took a long and lingering look
behind, and endeavoured to draw my noble friend into a con-
flict, the noble wisely and prudently refused to be en-
trapped into any admission. My noble friend put the ques-
tion very clearly when be asked—" What is the use of our

discussing money bills when they come up to this house, if
we have no right to reject, as we admit we have no right to
alter them ?" (Cheers.) Noble lords will recollect that when
the Succession Duty Bil was sent up from the other house,
it was very warmly discus-ed and debated by your lord-
ships. My noble • friend, Lord Aberdeen—whose absence
on the present occasion I greatly deplore—was then at he
head of the Government—a man of high talent but of still
higher reputation, not alone in this country but through-
out Europe and the world. (Cheers.) That noble lord
has been a member of your lordships' house for 60 years,
and from his station, character, and acquirements no one
can be more conversant with our privileges. What was
the language held by Lord Aberdeen in 1853 ?
"Now your lordships cannot alter a tittle of this bill ;
not a particle. You may, and this you have a full right to
do, throw it out on the second reading. (Loud cheers.)
That is perfectly within your lordships' competence to do."
It is for your lordships to consider, in this particular case,
whether it will be prudent and proper, having regard to the
interests of this country, that you should adopt such a
course. (Hear, hear.) My noble friend opposite has done
me the honour to cite my authority. What was the nature
of the circumstances which led to the decision he has re-
ferred to ? It was stated that 400 years ago the Sovereign
had created a life peerage, but no instance had occured since
that time. The argument I made use of, which was sup-
ported by many noble lords, was that everything in this
country depends on long usage and prescription; when,
therefore no such right has been exercised for 400 years, and
no claim has been put forward during that period, it ought
not to be acted on, and cannot be considered as part of the
law and constitution of the country—particularly after the
many changes, including a revolution and a restoration,
which have taken place. (Hear, hear.) That was my argu-
ment; but does it apply to the present case? My lords, I
shall be able to show that within a recent period this right
which we claim has been acted on without dispute—(hear)
—not in one, two, or three cases merely, but in numerous
instances. I hold a list of these cases in my hand, and I
have selected the more modern. In 1809 a bill came up to
this house for continuing and granting certain duties on
malt. It was rejected. (Hear, bear.) lam nct prepared
to say whether the bill was rejected in form, or whether,
according to the usual course, the motion was that it be
read a second time, or committed that day three months.
Again, in 1789 a bill was passed through the House of
Commons, and came up to your lordships, for imposing a

duty on cocoanuts. It was rejected on the 6th of August
in that year. A similar bill was brought up in 1790,
and again rejected; so that not only are there admis-
sions of our right by the House of Commons over
and over again, in the most distinct terms—
not only has there been no instance in which they have dis-
puted that right, but cases have occurred in which it has
been exercised by this house without any complaint on the
part of the Commons. But a distinction is drawn by my
noble friend opposite, who says those were bills for impos-
ing taxes ; this a bill to relieve from taxation—(hear)—and
my noble friend alleges that a wide distinction is thereby
created. (Hear.) That is certainly a novel doctrine ; I never
heard it broached before; there is no precedent for it, no
authority can be cited in its favour, no dictum even is given.
But as regards our practice, I hold in my hand a list of cer-
tain bills for relief from duties, which were rejected by your
lordships' house. (Cheers.) In the year 1790 a bill was
passed through the Commons to relieve the coasting trade
of Great Britain by removing stamps on certaindocuments,
and abolishing stamps respecting the Isle of Man. This
bill, which I believe had reference to smuggling, was re-
jected by your lordships, and there was not a murmur of
complaint
that I can find even a trace of. What becomes
then of my noble friend's distinction ? What becomes of
his 400 years' prescriptive right which he cited against my-
self ? (Hear.) But I should be sorry that the case rested
even here. In 1805 a bill was sent to this house for abo-
lishing certain fees payable to customhouse officers in Eng-
land ; that was a bill for relief from taxation, and it was re-
jested by your lordships without complaint. In 1807 a
similar step was taken with respect to a bill which proposed
to abolish payments to customhouse officers in Ireland, and
no complaint followed. In 1808 a measure was carried
through the Commons to repeal duties on coals carried coast-
wise in Wales, and granting others in lieu thereof. Here was
a bill to remove and to impose taxation, embracing conse-
quently both alternatives, and it likewise was rejected by
your lordships. (Cheers.) So much for the authority and
antiquity of the claim which is said to• be obsolete 1 Then,
my lords, in 1811, there was a bill passed by the other house
to suspend for one year the duties on corn, to ask for distil-
lation of spirits in England, and to permit the distillation
of spirits from sugar. That was a bill for the relief of du-
ties, and the amount of those duties was considerable.
That bill was discussed in the House of Commons at great
length. All the agricultural interest took part in the discus-
sion, and when it came down .to this house it was again dis-
cussed at great length. Lord Liverpool was then Minister.
He took pad in the discussion, as did also Lord Bathurst,
the Minister for the Colonies. After a long debate the bill
was thrown out. Did Lord Liverpool, the Minister of the
day under whose authority the bill was introduced, did he
make any complaint ? (Hear.) Did the House of Com-
mons make any complaint? Not a single syllable. (Hear.)
So far from that, when a few days afterwards a bill was
brought in to make amends for the loss of duties, he merely
said, " I introduce this bill in consequence of the rejection
of a bill by the other house." (Hear.) Never was a sub-
ject more fully discussed than that was. But this is a
stronger case. It is a case of a tax in progress. The mo-
ment a bill has passed this and the other house, and received
the Royal assent, it becomes the law of the land. All in-
dividual authority on the part of the House of Commons is
at an end—has terminated, and the house has no more au-
thority over it than your lordships have. It is a law which,
like any other law, can only be revoked by the joint action
of the two Houses of Parliament and with the consent of the
Crown. (Hear.) I was surprised to hear my noble friend
the other day admit that the whole permanent revenue of
the country could not be touched by the House of Commons
without the consent of this house. However I think I
have gone sufficiently, if not too much, into this matter—
(cheers)—but the question is of immense importance, not
only to the constitution, or to this or the other house, but to
the country. (Hear.) I have stated distinctly what rights
we claim and what rights we have exercised. We exercise
those rights not for ourselves, but for the people. I hear
it said that the House of Commons may order their officers
not to levy a tax of excise. The House of Commons may
annihilate that or any other law, and leave the responsibility
upon their unhappy agents who are instruments of their
caprices. But that is not a subject for discussion here. It
would be indecent in me—it would not be respectful to the
House of Commons nor to your lordships—it would not be
respectful to the Sovereign—it would not be respectful to -
wards myself, were I to enter upon such a consideration. I
hear it said, too, that a discussion took place respecting a
substitution of a penny of income-tax for these duties,
and that the substitution was agreed to. Whether a
penny of the income-tax was or was not meant
as a substitute for these duties I have no means
of knowing, but this I do know, that we could not strike
out that penny. We had no right to amend that bill, and if
we had attempted to amend it we should have been told at
once it was an invasion of the privileges of the House of
Commons. This is the answer I give to the charge of
" sharp practicer" which I believe an hon. member who
has considerable influence over some classes in this country
to whom I have before referred has endeavoured to fix upon
-your lordships. I may be told there is a surplus. That is a
perilous matter into which I do not choose to enter. It forms
no part of the programme which I have marked out for my-
self. I leave that to my noble friend opposite (Lord-Mon••
teagle), who I have no doubt will sufficiently clear up that
portion of the subject. The question comes to this :—lf
your lordships are satisfied, as you must be, that you have
not only the power but the constitutional right to reject this
bill, and if you aresatisfie I that there is an actual deficiency,
that next year there must be a most enormous deficiency,
and that the present state of Europe is such as to create
continual anxiety—(hear, hear)—then I ask your lordships
will you consent to give up, not for the present year only,
but permanently, a sum of nearly a million and a half ?
(Cheers) That is the proposition I put to your lordships,
and lam satisfied what your answer will be. As I said I
would confine myself to this question of privilege, I will
only further observe, that the illusions, perhaps I may say
the delusions, created by the introduction of the budget
seem to have passed away and we have learnt that although
brilliant eloquence has charms, yet, like other seductions, it
is not without its dangers. (Laughter.) The same schemes
may bear the impress of genius, of imprudence, of rashness.
Satis eloquentice, sapientic e parum is not an irreeoncileable
combination. (Hear, hear.) If my noble friend will move
the amendment of which he has given notice _I shall give
him, for the reasons I have stated, my cordial Support.
(Lead cheers.)
Lord REDESDALE said that members of the House of
Commons complained that they could not procure access to
the places set apart for them, and accordingly the bar was
ordered to be cleared of all persons except members of the
House of Commons and younger sons of Peers.
Lord MONTEAGLE then rose and said,—l have been
delighted with the arguments I have heard from my noble
and learned friend, which are so conclusive upon what is,
after all, the great question out of doors. After that
speech I do not think any one will be disposed to question
the full and unqualified right, as admitted by high autho-
rities and sanctioned by undisturbed practice, of this house
dealing with any money bill, either by accepting or reject-
ing it. If the arguments you have heard have carried, as
they must have done, conviction to your lordships' minds
there is an end at once and for ever of the charges that have
been loosely and unpardonably brought against this house.
It is but a small matter that one of the humblest members
of this house, like myself, should have been made a 'special
object of attack, and that personal motives should have been
attributed to me. Allow use, in the first place, to say that,
however gratified and honoured I may be with the approval
by the noble earl opposite (Lord Derby) of the motion of
which I have given notice, yet, as he has stated elsewhere,
I beg to say that I make this motion as a matter of duty,
and there is:no combination to deal with this question either
in an objectionable or unparliamentary manner. My noble
friend, I believe, was as ignorant of my intention to give
the notice as I was entirely unprepared for his declaration
of opinion on the subject. If it be true that this is our
right and privilege, that it does not rest upon our own as-
sertion of the fact, and that such a right is as useful to the
other branch of the 14egialature as it is valuable to ourselves,