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

House of Lords had not behaved even with fair honour to

the House of Commons in this matter. They knew—or at
least every man of them who knew anything of what he was
voting about—(laughter)—knew that the House of Com-
mons had repealed the paper excise, not because they wished
to remit a million of taxation, but because they did not wish
to strangle a great industry merely for the sake of raising a
million. (No, no.) He would appeal to the hon. baronet
the member for Somersetshire (Sir W. Miles) if he was not

correct P (Hear, hear.) It wag on that account that this

house had trati.sferred a million of taxation from the paper
excise to the income tax. That was known to the House

of Lords, and although they might not Lowe approved of
the change, still it was not honourable treatment of this
house to act as they had done ; and even if they had that
power of the American senate which the right hon, gentle-
man (Mr. Horsman) wished them to possess, it wifald not
have been fair in them to enact the additional penny of

income tax and then to refuse to repeal the tax upon paper.
(Cheers.) That was one view of the question which ho
wished every man to understand, and he could not believe
that there was a member of the House of Lords who did not
wish the case could not be put in that shape. (Hear,

hear.) Another offence that the House of Lords had com-
mitted was, that they had trampled upon the confidence,
and had taken advantage of the faith, of the House of Com-
mons. (Hear.) The right hon. gentleman the member
for Bucks had made a very curious statement on that
point—a statement which if he (Mr. Bright) were a mem-
ber of the House of Lords—(laughter)—he should be dis-
_

posed to find fault with. The right hon. gentleman said it
was the neglect—the lathes, he thought the right hon. gen•
tleman called it—of the House of Commons that had given
the House of Lords an opportunity of acting as they had
done. But surely if for 500 years such an act had never been
known—if the search of 20 gentlemen in committee had
been unable to find anything approaching to it, the House
of Commons might very well conclude that they would
abide in the usage of the constitution, and would not take
advantage of a change which the House of Commons had
made with a view to the benefit of trade. For the West
India planters asked the house not to trouble them with
the sugarduty every year, and thus it was that those duties,
for example, had come to be made permanent taxes. But
according to the right hon. gentleman, the House of Lords
were political burglars. Bars, bolts, chains, locks, fetters,
and everything they could devise, must be provided in order
to keep them out; for if they once gave them the slightest
advantage, in they would come. (Cheers.) With regard
to the great majority by which the right hon. gentleman
said the Paper Duties Bill was rejected by the House of
Lords, he recollected speaking not long ago with a member
of that house on the subject, and he should not mind tell-
ing the house what the noble lord said about it. The noble
lord observed that if they had had the regular House of
Lords—that was to say, the 100 members who reallytrans-
acted its business—the Paper Duties Bill would certainly
' have passed.. (Oh, oh, and cheers.) But, continued the
noble lord, that had happened which they could all under-
stand. Some 200 other members who hardly ever came
down to the house were, as he said, let loose for the occa-
sion. (Cheers.) They were most of them unknown to the
public as politicians, but they came down to vote out the
bill by a large majority ; and they did it with a chuckle and
a jollity as if they thought they were making a violent at-
tack upon the Ministry, and especially upon the Chancel-
lor of the Exchequer. (Hear, hear.) In the House of Com-
mons they sometimes complained of Ministerspassing mea-
sures very late at night, when only 50 members were pre-
sent, of whom 30 were supporters of the Government ; but
in the House of Lords three were a quorum—(laughter)---
and those three men, with proxies in their pockets, were
ready to dispose of a question of £70,000,000 of taxes drawn
from the industry of this country. (Cheers, and oh.)
And if these 200 members of the House of Lords were to
Come down any other night, there was no single thing,
however liberal or however good, that they would not have
rejected, and thereby have frustrated the beneficent inten-
tions of the House of Commons. (" Oh, oh," and cheers.)
After all he had said he was about to make this admission.
The House of Lords could reject a bill if they liked ; they
could initiate a bill if they liked ; they could that night, if
it were not so late—but they all went home before seven
o'clock—(laughter and sheers)—move to bring in a bill to
levy a tax, or to vote money, or to do anything they liked,
or they could, with regard to any bill they were about to
send down to that house. They were omnipotent within
the four walls of their house, as the House of Commons was
omnipotent within the four walls of that house. But having
made that admission, he said that when the house of Lords
took a course contrary to the whole practice of their house
and of Parliament altogether, it was necessary for that house
to consider what course it ought to pursue. The House of
Commons could not formally compel them to make any
change, but they could take such a course as would compel
them to make a change. His opinion was that it would have
been consistent with the dignity of that house, irrespective
of the importance of the tax, amounting to some £1,300,000
or £700,000, to have passed another bill to repeal the paper
duties. (Cheers.) If that had not been a duty which he
(Mr. Bright) had considered it desirable to repeal—and there
were severel duties which he considered it would be more
desirable for a Chancellor of the Exchequer to repeal than
others—he would have laid aside the question of any parti-
cular tax. The question before them was not a question of
any particular tax ; it was a question far more perilous
to the country, more fatal to the independence of the house,
namely, whether they would lessen and impair the powers
which had been exercised by their predecessors. (Cheers.) He
believed that if the noble viscount, taking up a positionwhich
he (Mr. Bright) thought he had failed to do in this matter
—(cheers)—had asked the house—not, perhaps, on the
ground that the paper duties were the best tax to re-
peal, but that the House of Commons, having come to that
conclusion, were bound to abide by it ; if he had asked them
to pass another bill and send it up to the House of Lords,
it would have given that house an opportunity of recon-
sidering their position ; it would have given the House of
Lords the same opportunity; and in all probability, as he
believed, a course would have been taken, without passion
—without resentment—by which these difficulties would
kave been passed over, and both houses would have pro-
ceeded more regularly than they were likely to do under
the course which had been pursued by the House of Lords.
Having stated that he would leave the question of these
resolutions, he saw no reason whatever in the argument
that these duties were necessary, so that it was perilous to
repeal them. Their repeal was consistent with the policy
of the Whigs before the accession of Sir R. Peel to office,
with the policy of Lord Derby's Government, of the Govern-
ment of Lord J. Russell, of the Government of Lord Pal-
merston, and of Lord Derby's last Government, and of the
existing Government. The policy of the *repeal of the
paper duties was the recognised policy of the house, and
the admitted interest of the country. Then why, unless it
were for the sake of a party triumph, or to attack a parti-
cular Minister—(cheers)—should this question of a sum of
£700,000 be raised to a magnitude which did not belong to
it; and why, if not for the sake of such a party triumph,
should the measure be disgraced and tortured as it had
been, through the contrary action of the House of Lords?
(Oh, oh, and cheers.) He was told there were members of
the Government who would not support the Government
in such a course. If the noble lord had brought it forward
on these grounds, he doubted whether the house would not
have taken precisely the course indicated by the resolu-
tions, and have passed the bill by a much greater majority
than that by which they had passed it before. (Cheers.)
He was aware that there were gentlemen on that side of
the house who had offered great temptations to hon.
gentlemen opposite to step out into opposition. An
hon. gentleman behind him had spoken of the Chan-
seller of the Exchequer as a reckless and unfit administra-
tor of the public finances. (Opposition cheers, and cries of
" No.") The hon. gentleman said he confined his obser-
vations to the question of the paper dirties. He (Mr.
Bright) did not mean to go further than that in the state-
ment he had made. But in 1853 they had the same Chan-
cellor of the Exchequer. It was alleged that he committed
great errors. (Cheers and counter cheers.) Well, the right
hon. gentleman opposite, who was Chancellor of the Ex-
chequer, was not in office long enough to commit any great
errors. He brought in a budget, and the House of Com-
mons rejected it ; and on the second time when he brought
in a budget, he put everything off to his successor. (Cheers
and laughter.) Anybody could carry on for a session on
that principle. But that was not the principle of the pre-
sent Chancellor of the Exchequer. (Cheers and counter
cheers.) In 1853 the right hon. member for the Univer-
sity of Oxford was Chancellor of the Exchequer. He (Mr.
Bright) would put it to both sides of the house whether it
was not the fact that the main strength of the Govern-
ment of Lord Aberdeen was developed by and concen-
trated
in the action of the Chancellor of the Exchequer
upon the taxation of the country which obtained universal
praise from the country, and which gave a strength to that
mixed Government which it did not otherwise possess ?
(Cheers.) Then they came to the present year ; and with-
out attempting to depreciate the character or the abilities
of the noble viscount or his colleagues, he asked whether
the power which the present Government had possessed
during this session had not been gained mainly through the
beneficent propositions of the Chancellor of the Exche-
quer. (': Oh loh !" laughter, and cheers.) Some said the
house was alternately charmed and coerced ; but he thought
the house was never less likely than now to submit to such
influence. The house had shown a wonderful independ-
ence—independence of its own puo indus-
try,
nf
iversalExchequer was
rinciples and of every-
thing that it had done 'before. Every one would agree that
when the budget of the Chancellor of the
propoundedand
am among
receivedgwasthe
witoeufladveur appealf it
to
wtheroesenoent the
farmers
aopthperrobasitdioen.wb(eChbeaedrsv.)etel-alti3n
n alltoo,th we igtrhe aatl lc ibtiuets
(Hear, hear.) A great deal had been said against the French
treaty since it was first mooted.i t
be that A Government
which ernrnentjournal in
might
this country, whose motto Pascal said
was adopted by one of the ancients—" Omnia pro temporis ;
nihil pro veritate," had said much against it. Every pos-
sible form of falsehood had been propounded with regard to
the treaty; and a right hon. gentleman had not hesitated
that night to give currency to statements which were wholly
inaccurate, and to which he (Mr. Bright), if anywhere else,
would apply a stronger term. (Hear, hear.) He had said
that the manufacturers of England were painted somethings
in the antechambers of the'Emperor of the French. That
statement was wholly untrue. No man in England was
more competent to give an opinion on the question than he
was. (Hear, hear.) Nothing could exceed the good faith