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

gave their assent to the power to reject there should be
also power to amend, but with a real responsibility, every
two members being representatives of a peculiar sovereign

state. But that assent did reject and amend financial bills

in a manner which was never permitted or proposed in this
country till the extraordinary speech to which the house
had just listened.• (Hear.) Seven years after that contest
there arose another contest in which a resolution was passed

which was always referred to as the strongest resolution
which the Commons had ever passed on this subject.
The Commons declared then that all aids and supplies to
the king lay in the Commons, and all bills for supplies

should begin with the Commons, and was their sole anciun-

doubted right. The hon, gentleman, after referring to a
few other precedents, said that in 1702 there was another

precedent, which declared that the granting of public money
was the undoubted right of the Commons alone. Now he
asked the house as reasonable men, supposing they were
discussing questions between the American Senate and the
American House of Representatives, or between any two
assemblies in any other country, what would be the conclu-
sion to which they would necessarily come as the purpose
and object of all these declarations and resolutions to which
he had referred, and which were only a portion of those
which were to be found in the pathway of the journals of
the house for the last 500 years ? Would they say that it
led to the conclusion that the Lords would throw out a bill

repealing a tax of the value and magnitude of £1,300,000 a
year ? Would they say that if the Lords could not begin a
tax, or collect a tax, or dispose of it, or control it in any

way, or even give advice to the Commons with regard to a
tax—that notwithstanding all this, which was clear and
undeniable, that they could in the face of this reject a bill
which repealed a tax of the amount of £1,300,000 a-year,
without violating Parliamentary usage, and running coun-
ter to all the declarations of this house for many centuries
past ? (Cheers.) He put it before the committee, and if
hon. members had done him the favour of reading the draft
report that he proposed, they would see that he put before
the committee the whole history of these declarations in
language not ambiguous, not feeble, but clear and forcible,
and that could not be mistaken ; and then he wished to ask
the committee, as he was now asking the house, what was
the end and object which the Commons had in view in
these repeated declarations and resolutions touching the
grants of supply and the taxation of the people. He
should say that these declarations did this—they confirmed
for 500 years, and consecrated that which till within the
last hour he had thought every man in England admitted
—(hear, hear)—as a fundamental and unchangeable prin-
ciple in the English Government and constitution, and
in the rights of the English people—that taxation and repre-
sentation were inseparab!e in this kingdom. (Loud cheers.)
Let them look how these declarations and resolutions ap-
plied to the case before them. They were in the year 1860,
and for a long period they had had no question of import-
ance of this nature, so that they began to fancy that after
all there was no great importance in such a question. They
had had their personal liberty in this country almost longer
in some classes of society than history showed any example
of, and people fancied probably that the loss of personal
liberty might not be very great or might not be in danger.
So in this case they were so confident of their right and of
their power that they did not sufficiently apprehend or
comprehend that there might be an infringement of the
right in the proposed diminution of the power. The paper
duty was founded, he believed, in the reign of Queen Anne,
partly for the revenue and partly for another purpose, the
very purpose, he presumed, which might in some degree
account for its rejection. The tax was imposed to prevent
the spreading of political information. (Oh.) He saw an
hon. gentleman opposite who was very much astonished at
this, but the hon. gentleman was not aware that all this
was stated in the preamble of the bill. (Hear, hear.) Public
opinion in those days allowed of very bad reasons being
given. Now they might be acted upon very often, but
they were not given. (Cheers and laughter.) Well, from
the time of Queen Anne to this time this paper duty had
crippled a very important industry, it had taxed a great
trade, it had taxed all the trades which required large
quantities of paper, as the trades of Manchester, of Sheffield,
of Nottingham, of Birmingham, and so forth. But more
than that, it had successfully done what Queen Anne's
Miiisters wanted—it had burdened and to a large extent it
had strangled the press of this country. (Olrand laughter
from the Opposition.) And now within the last 30 years,
as members on the oPpositiside of the house by this time
were becoming conscious of, new principles were established
in this country with regard to taxation and industry; and
some very powerful advocates of those new principles he
had the pleasure of seeing sitting opposite to him to-night.
The right hon. the member for Stroud (Mr. Horsman) had
gone upon the old mode of discussion when arguments
were not plentiful and facts were entirely wanting. He
had raised Bentham's old friend, the hobgoblin argument,
and had tried to show them that some frightful calamity
would happen. if the paper duty wore repealed. It was but
a million and a quarter. Did any one believe that the pro-
sperity, the success of any great interest in this country
could possibly depend on a million more or less in the gene-
ral revenue of the empire. A million was a million.
(Laughter from the Opposition.) He was very glad to have
said something in which the hon. member for Leicestershire
could coincide. (Laughter.) There was no member of
that house who had laid more stress upon the importance
of a million as a tax upon the people than he (Mr. Bright)
had. It was the tax of many towns, of many villages, and
might make the difference between comfort and desolation
sometimes. Therefore he was the last person to undervalue
the amount 'of a million of public revenue. But still he
should be making himself foolish, and appearing to make
the house the same, if he were to say that a million in this
country, now that the taxes amounted to 70 millions a year,
as compared with what it was when they amounted to 50
millions—if he were to say that a million sterling was of the
gigantic importance which hon. gentlemen seemed to think.
On this million, however, Mr. Horsman founded an argument
of recklessness, of precipitancy, of madness, and, he thought,
of drunkenness. (No, no.) Well that was to be inferred,
for the right hon. gentleman made use of the converse, and
spoke of sobriety. (Cheers and laughter.) The noble lord
the member for London, last night, in his speech told them,
and they all knew that it was within the recollection of
almost the youngest member of the house, that there had
been excise duties on many other articles repealed. At
one time there was an excise duty on candles, on soap,
on leather, on glass. All those duties had been repealed ;
and could they find a man. from John o'Groat's to the
Land's End who would not tell them that these principles
applied to the repeal•of these excise duties were of essen-
tial benefit not only to the particular trades but to the
great mass of the people ? Having followed that course
for many years they came to the year 1860, when it was
proposed to repeal the paper duty, which had been recom-
mended to the bouse by the Cabinet, by the public officers,
asked for by numerous petitions, and wished for by every
one in the country who took an intelligible view of what
was essential to aid the efforts which the Government were
making by liberal grants to promote . the instruction of the
people. Well, this tax was £1,300,000, and it was a ques-
tion whether that should be repealed, or sugar or tea be re-
lieved a million. It was the same to the Chancellor of the
Exchequer whether he took one or the other. In the case
of tea and sugar it would Ile a relief merely to the amount
of a million; but in repealing the paper duty he relieved a
great industry and several other trades that depended for
their prosperity upon an abundant and cheap supply of
paper. But the question might be still more narrowed. If
the paper duty had been repealed from the 15th of August,
as proposed, the loss in the financial year would have
amounted to hardly more than £600,000, and would hardly
have reached £700,000. And were they come to this, that
they could not take off £700,000 a year from an excise
which was strangling a great trade, and put on an addi-
tional penny of income tax, but the constitution and the
usage of Parliament must be violated, and they must bring
in a foreign power to check their precipitate and headlong
career. (Cheers.) Now, he confessed it might be far from
the modesty that became a member of that house, but he
was of opinion the House of Commons was the best judge
in this country of what was required by the financial con-
dition of the country. There was scarcely a trade in the
country that was not represented, and he ventured to say
there was no representative assembly in the world, which, in
the last 20 years, had done more in financial and fiscal reforms
than this house had done, and with greater profit to the
people. (Cheers.) And yet, at the end of this period, when
their triumphs were to be found, not in granite and bronze
ornaments, but in the increased comforts of the people, and
the increased and undoubted loyalty of the population, they
were now forsooth asked by the right hon. gentleman (Mr.
Horsman) to abdicate their functions, and to ask 400 gen-
tlemen who were not traders, who were not financiers, who
had no means of understanding these questions—they were
asked to permit these 400 gentlemen to advise, to check, and
even to control them. (Hear.) Why, it was one of the points
which grieved him on this question that he saw the House
of Lords taking of all cases perhaps the worst that could
possibly come before them, and inflicting, suddenly and un-
expectedly, and, in his opinion, groundlessly, and most
harshly, very cruel treatment upon all who aro interestel
in the excise duty on paper. And yet they were now asked
to overthrow the fabric which had grown up in this coun-
try, and had existed, and without change, for at least 500
years. For if they went so far back as 1640, they would
find the House of Commons making this declaration, to
which he would ask the members of the present house to
give their attention. They said that they had had uninter-
rupted possession of this privilege—the privilege that was
of an exclusive control over the taxation and the finances of
the country—ever since 1407, confirmed by a multitude of
precedents before and after that date, and unshaken by one
adverse precedent for more than 300 years. Well, if that
wore so, it carried back the possession of the right for a
period of 520 years ; yet now they asked in the most un-
blushing and audacious manner—(cheers)—to overthrow
this magnificent and time-honoured usage, and admit a new
power who had hitherto been unaccustomed to exercise it
—the hereditary branch of the legislature. (Cheers.) The
House of Lords had committed two offences which he had
much rather they had not committed, for he was anxious
that they should not depreciate themselves in the eyes
of the people of this country. (Oh, oh.) If hon. gentle-
men were as anxious as he was that the House of Lords
should continue, limited to its proper functions, doing all
the good that was possible for it, and likewise doing as
little harm as possible—(laughter)—they would not laugh
with that kind of unbelieving expression which they had
evidently inteudod just now to convey. (Hoar, hear.) The