The Sun.
London, England, 1861-05-14 00:00:00

PRINCESS ALICE'S DOWRY BILL.

a desire to come and vote on the question, and Dr. Win-
slow endeavoured to dissuade him, considering it would
not be proper for him to do so, being at the time an
inmate of a lunatic asylum. He repeated in the ccurse of
the day his visit to the medical gentleman in charge of the
asylum, who also endeavoured to alter his intention, but
finding that he could not effect his object by argument, did
not consider it advisable to offer any further opposition.
Sir G. C. LEWIS said that in the present state
of information it would not be desirable to adopt
the course proposed by the honourable and learned
member (Mr. Roebuck). He had reason to believe
that the Commissioners of Lunacy had inquired into
this matter. He would communicate with them, and re-
quest them to make an official report to the Home Office,
and when he received that report he would lay it on the
table of the house. (Hear, hear )
Mr. COGAN complained of the indelicacy of brining
this matter forward.
Lord PALMERSTON said that, however painful it
might be to bring this subject before the house, he thought
it was a matter that should be decided on higher grounds
than those of personal considerations. (Hear, hear.)
Tt was a very serious thing that a person
should come out of a lunatic asylum and vote on an im-
portant question, and he thought it necessary for the
dignity of the house that there should be an investigation
into the circumstances.
After some discussion, in the course of which several
hon. members stated that they conversed with Mr. Steuart
on the night in question and that his mind was sound, the
motion was negatived without a division.
CUSTOMS AND INLAND REVENUE BILL.

This bill was brought up from the Commons and read a
first time,

RAGGED SCHOOLS.

The Earl of SHAFTESBURY moved for the evidence
on which that part of the report of the Education
Commission which related to ragged schools was founded.
He complained of the statements and opinions put forth in
this respect, and thought it was actually necessary that the
evidence which enabled the commissioners to come to such
a conclusion should be produced. He had read the report,
and in his opinion it was untrue, unfair, and ungenerous;
not wilfully untrue, but untrue in fact ; and altogether a
more flagrant abuse of public authority had never been per-
petrated by any body of men. Numbers of the returns
made by the secretaries of ragged schools had altogether
been omitted. Incorrect as the statements were as regarded
the metropolis, those affecting the provinces were much
worse. In the report Lancashire was put down as having
but six ragged schools, with an attendance amounting to
927, but the information supplied by the town of Liverpool
alone contradicted such a statement. In 1853 there were in
Liverpool 11 Sunday schools, with 1,515 attendants; day
schools 11, with 1,478 scholars ; evening ragged schools,
29, with 3,379 attendants; and industrial schools 2, with
210 scholars ; making a total .of 53 schools, with
6,582 attendants in Liverpool alone . while the
commissioners had set the number down at six.
He felt certain the report would create the
greatest dissatisfaction, and that the whole of the
benevolent individuals interested in the spread of
ragged schools would, he felt certain, protest against it,
It had been objected that ragged schools drew scholars from
the day schools. That no doubt was true, but it was also
true of other schools. Many parents sent their children
to free schools in order to save the money they would
have to pay for their education, but that was not solely
confined to Ragged Schools. Supposing a commission
was sent out to examine into the Blue Coat School
in London a school founded for the sons of
poor citizens. Why, ho thought it would be as-
certi.ined in a most positive manner, that a great
number of the scholars in the Blue-coat School be..
longed to parents who could well afford to pay for their
children's education. (Hear, hear.)

On the motion for the t econd reading of this bill,
Mr. MACD ONOGH complained tbat the bill for the
repeal of the paper duties, which the House of Lords re-
jected last year, was now annexed to a bill of supply, and
contended that that was a course contrary to the spirit of
the constitution. There was only one precedent for this
proceeding, and that was unsuccessful. He called upon
the house to strike out the objectionable clauses, and in-
clude them in a separate bill.

Sir J. GRAHAM—The hon. and learned gentleman has
received the congratulations of his friends, and I also will
congratulate him upon the argument which he has used.
Both sides of the house have listened with great pleasure
and satisfaction to the hon. and learned gentleman's speech.
I should not have risen so scon, but I am afraid if I wait
until a later hour in the evening I should have missed the
opportunity of offering some observations to the house. The
question raised by the hon. and learned gentleman seems to
me to be of such importance that I cannot remain altoge-
ther silent upon it. (Hear.) If the question of the second
reading of this bill had assumed a wider range I should have
been content to leave the arguments upon it where they
rest, after the full discussion which the budget has already
undergone. We have cleared the ground as to a surplus,
f'r a surplus has been admitted ; and it is admitted, also,
that the remission of taxes is desirable, and the amount of
remission is unquestionable. The proposal of remission on
the other side was larger than that of the Government, and
the question as between tea and paper has been decided by
a majority of the house, and therefore I will not wander into
that subject. Indeed, in my present state I should not be
able to do so ; therefore I shall confine my few remarks to
the constitutional question which the argument of the hon.
and learned gentleman has raised. Before my right hon.
friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer avails himself of that
locus penitentias which the hon. and learned gentleman so
generously affords him as to this mode of legislation, and
before the house adopts the argument of the learned gentle-
man, and regrets the form which this bill has assumed, em-
bracing both the remission and the imposition of taxes, I wish
to say a few words upon the question. In the last session of
Parliament I incurred the displeasure of many of my hon.
friends sitting below the gangway for the part I took in
committee upstairs on the vote which the House of Lords
adopted for rejecting the Paper Duties Bill sent up to that
house. The hon. and learned gentleman talked of the repeal

The Duke of NEWCASTLE eulogised the report as one
of the most impartial and fair reports that had ever been
laid before the house. The investigation had been most
laborious, and would lead to considerable good as regarded
the education of the country. So far as raggedechools were
concerned, the report only went to this, that it could not
look upon those schools as part of the permanent educa-
tional institnt;ons, and therefore could not recommend that
they should share in grants of the public money.
Lord PORTMAN bore testimony to the value of these
schools in preparing children for other schools forming
part of the educational system of the country, but he did
not think they were of that permanent character which
entitled them to share in the grants voted by the State.
Earl GRANVILLE having expressed himself to the
same effect,

of the paper duties as a measure of doubtful policy, but he

was not a member of that house last session when the bill
was fought in all its stages, and then went up to the other
house by a majority which I will admit was not a large one.
(Conservative cheers.) The question was now fully debated
and a division taken upon it in the course of the last 10
days, and the house preferred the abolition of that duty to
a diminution of the duty upon tea. (Hear, hear.) In the
last session I differed from many among those with whom
I sit as to the right of the House of Lords to exercise the
power of rejecting the Paper Duties Bill ; and in the com-
mittee upstairs, as the printed proceedings will show, I dif-
fered from my right hon. friend the Chancellor of the Ex-
chequer, and from my noble friend with whom I have so
1 long acted on great constitutional questions I differed

The Earl of SHAFTESBURY replied, and
The motion was withdrawn.
The Passengers (Australian Colonies) Bill and the Mar.
riages Validity Bill were passed through committee.
Their lordships then adjourned.

HOUSE OF COMMONS.—YESTERDAY.
The SPEAKER took the chair at four o'clock.
PRIV ATE BUSINESS.

The Lords' amendments to the Bradford, Wakefield, and
Leeds Railway Bill, Kilrush and Kilkee 11,.ilway and
Poulnasherry Reclamation Bill, and Morayshire Railway
Bill were considered and agreed to,
The Stratford-upon-Avon Railway Bill as amended was
considered and ordered for third reading.
The followinc, bills were read a third time and passed :
_

Birke,head Railway ; Coleford, Monmruth, Usk, and
Pontypool Railway ; Elland Gas ; London and North-
Western (Cheshire Lines) ; London and North-Western
(Liverpool Lines) ; Rathkealo and Newcastle Junction
Railway ; and Salisbury and Dorset Junction Railway.
The following bills were considered, and ordered for 3d
reading :—Frosterly and Stanhope Railway; London and
North Western, and Manchester, Sheffield, and Lincoln-
shire Railways (Manchester London Road Station) ;
Manchester and Wilmslow Roa I ; Mid Wales Railway;
Price's Patent Candle Company (Lords) ; Saint George's
Harbour.
The following bills were considered :—Great North of
Scotland Railway, Metropolitan Railway (Extension to
Finsbury Circus), Victoria Station and Pimlico Railway,
and Wolverhampton New Water.
Several private bills were also read a first time.
CATHOLIC PAUPERS IN SCOTCH WORK-
HOUSES.

Mr. M'EVOY asked the President of the Poor-law
Board whether it was intended to take any evidence before
the select committee now sitting on poor relief (England)
in reference to the complaints made of the proselytism of
Catholics in workhouses in Scotland ?
Mr. VILLIERS said he did not think it would be proper
to introduce any evidenco of this kind before the committee
who were called on to investigate the subject alluded to.
MR. MOSS.

Mr. Alderman SALOMONS asked the Secretary of
State for Foreign Affairs if he had received a copy of the
communication addressed to Mr. Moss by the English mer-
chants of Yokohama, on the sentence of fine, deportation,
and imprisonment at Hong Kong recently passed by her Ma-
jesty's representative at Japan upon that gentleman; and
if he intends to lay upon the table any papers on this case
for the information of the house
Lord J. RUSSELL was understood to say that the
papers were referred to the law officers of the Crown, and
that at present they could not be produced.
ADJOURNMENT OF THE HOUSE FOR WHIT-
SUNTIDE.

Lord PALMERSTON said it might be convenient
if ho stated that it was proposed to adjourn on Friday next
until the following Thursday.
MR. A. STEUART,
Mr. ROEBUCK rose to draw the attention of the house
to a personal matter, and one which involved a breach
of the privileges of that house. He regretted that he should
be compelled to mention in a painful manner the name of a
member of that house, Mr. Andrew Steuart--
Mr. MACAULAY appealed to the Speaker whether it
was usual to bring forward matters of this kind without
giving the member who was affected by it notice, or giving
his neerest fri, nd such notice.
The SPEAKER explained that, as the hon. and learned
meini er proposed to make a statement of a circumstance
which he considered was a breach of the privileges of the
house, he was perfectly in order, and might use his own
discretion.
Mr. ROEBUCK said that some fifteen years ago Mr.
.Steuart was afflicted with a brain fever, which left
behind a great irritability. It must be known to all
• who were acquainted with the life of Charles Lamb that
his sister, who was afflicted in a similar way, had a fore-
sight when her disease was coming on. Mr. Steuart had
the same foresight, and some time since desired to place
himself in a lunatic asylum, and applied to Drr. .Witoslow,
the proprietor, to be admitted inmate,aseanshouid have Da
Winslowcertificate
explained that it was necessary b
signed by two medical men be fore he could receive him into
his asylum. Mr Stenart obtained such certificate, which stated
that '• he was not only dangerous to himself but to others."
Notwithstanding this the hon. memberforCambridge voted
on an important question in that house on last Friday morning.
Now he considered it was most improper to allow a man to
te
come amongst number of excited men—(laughter)—out
of a lunette asylum. He charged nobody, but as
somebody was to blame he considered the subject
should be investigated, and he concluded by moving that a
select committee be appointed to inquire into the circum- I
stances under which the fin.
member voted on Friday
morning last. (Hear, hear.)
Mr. If A DFIE LD seconded the motion.
Mr. MACAULAY, as a colleague of the hon. member
for Cambridge, considered it right to enter into lana-
as ex
tion on this subject. 'When the hon. and leaeo,a
member
(Mr. Roebuck) communicated the subject to him
he made a statement totally different to that Which
he bad made that evening. He (Mr. Roebuck) said that
ho had: heard from the most reliable information that
Mr. Steuart, was brought down to the hoaee--
attended by two keepers, who accompanied him to
the door of the house, and when the hon. member left they
followed him. Re seared that the hon. and learned gentle-
man must have been misinformed, and said that after
he left the house he accompanied and walked across Palace-
yard with him, and there were no keepers in attendance ;
but the hon. and learned member said that they were pre'
sent without his knowledge. The hon, and learned member
(Mr. Macaulay) then entered into a statement that Mr.
Steuart was perfectly sane, not only on the night in ques-
tion, but ten days previous, as was shown by a
letter which he had received from him, but
which, most unfortunately, was not at present in
his possession. The certificate on which Dr. Winslow
admitted him to his asylum was made from the informa-
tion comniunicfited by Mr, Steuart himself, He enrolled

from them with great regret ; but still my opinion was, on
looking at the precedents impartially, that the House of
Lords had exercised a power inherent in them, and which
could not be denied, in their rejection of the Paper Duties

Bill. (Hear, hear.) I say it was the exercise of a right

but at the same time the policy of exercising that right was
doubtful, and it was the exercise of an extreme right. Ido
not think the hon. and learned gentleman can produce a pre-
cedent in which the House of Lords ever before rejected a sup-
ply bill on purely financial grounds. I believe the act of the
House of Lords last session, whatever their right might be,
was the exercise of an extreme right unprecedented in our
constitutional history. (Cheers.) But, entertaining this
opinion, I am bound to add my own conclusions on the
course adopted by the Government, and I think that course
is sustained by usage, and under circumstances quite right

in policy, and one which the' house ought to adopt, by the
second reading of this bill, the repeal of the duties proposed
by the Government in one bill. (Cheers.) The learned
gentleman said he should be astonished if an instance could
be produced where the imposition and remission of taxi s
were placed in one bill.
Mr. MACDONOGH explained that what he meant was,

he should be astonished if a precedent could be found of a
bill rejected by the House of Lords, and then repassed
by this house in a combined bill, and sent up again to the
other house. (Hoar, hear.)
Sir J. GRAHAM—My answer to that is that since the

Revolution the Lords have never rejected a bill of this

nature. (Cheers.) It was a novel eourse which the House
of Lords pursued; and it shows me that the time has ar-
rived when the Commons ought to pursue one course, viz,, 1
to refer to ancient practice, to be traced from the earliest
times and followed up almost to the present period. (Hear,
hear.) I will not go at length into the precedents, still, as
to the right and usage of the Commons to combine in one
bill the larger portion of the budget for the year, and to
combine in it the imposition and remission of taxes, there
can be no doubt that it has existed from the Revolution
1 downwards, and has been sustained by usage and consti-
-1 tutional authority. (Cheers.) I will only instance the
1 case of 1787, consequent upon the French treaty. In that
1 year a resolution was adopted by the house, and subse•.
1 quently an act was passed for repealing several duties of
1 customs and excise, and for granting other duties in lieu
1 thereof. (Hear, hear.) That act combined both the re-
-1 pealing of duties and the granting of other duties in lieu
1 thereof. There were schedules of 60 quarto pages, based
upon -
I mended by Mr. Pitt, carried by Mr. Pitt, and a motion
I was made in the Commons to divide the bill into two
I parts, but that motion was, after full debate, rejected.
(Hear, hear.) In the House of Lords an objection was
taken sat their independence was invaded by such a com-
bination of multifarious matter in one bill, but the argu-
ments against the bill were resisted, and it was carried by
the Lords upon a division. This was a bill which enacted
and repealed taxes. (Cheers.) Well, then, what was the
course adopted at the time of the union, in 1800, and again
on the authority of Mr. Pitt. In the article 3of the Act of
Union there were two schedules, extending to seven quarto
pages, and they combined both remission of taxes and coun-
tervailing duties, which were as extensive and important as
those which I have described. To come to a later period the
hon. and learned gentleman will find that in 1808—he dwelt,
I think, very much upon the precedent of 1807—but in 1808,
by the 48th Geo. 111 , c. 2, there was an enactment repeal-
ing duties, continuing duties, and re-enacting duties; not,
therefore, the double enactment of this session, but the
triple enactment of repealing, continuing, and re-enacting
(Cheers.) The bill included sugar, malt, tobacco, and snuff,
and the duties upon offices and pensions, and it went on to
repeal 6d, and Is. respectively on offices, and after repeal-
ing and continuing other duties, it re-enacted Gd and ls.
respectively on certain other offices for the year 1808.
That course was in strict accordance with precedent and
the course now adopted by Government, and that bill, so
various in its operations for one year, was continued from
yearto
angetookb
yearu t
thetill place,l v
i 82 2z
duties . , t I
upon
duty
In that year
upon m
a mostalt
was important
made
perpetual,
change
On sugar, tobacco, and snuff,
and other things, from 1822-.25, were annually renewed
in one bill, and he wished the house to mark
that it was by making a tax perpetual that the
house had lost a constitutional check upon the House of
Lords, but which the House of Commons ought never
snuff were -weenre
theytransferred
were
m fromade the
pertu
to have surrendered. (Hear, hear.)
peexciasl.
e
In 1826 the duties
on tobacco
to thecustoms,
From 1827 to 1834 the duties upon sugar, and offices, and
and h
and ff
personal estates were annually renewed in one bill. From
1834 to 1836 they were continued in separate acts, but only
for two years, and then in 1836 the duties upon offices and
pensions were made perpetual. There remained only the
sugar duties, and
from IS3G to 1816 those duties were con-
tinned Sir R. Peel
his administration that, for
left office it had been decided by
from year to year in one bill. Just before
the sake of those interested in raising sugar, the uncer-
tainty which.existed should cease, and the duties were then
in'tle Perpetual. That was the intention of Sir IL Peel when
he resigned office, and it became the duty of the noble lord
, to
the Secretary for Foreign Affairs (Lord J. Russell), who
succeeded hire
not leaving the large duties at the disposal of the House of
give effect to that intention. The effect of
Commons was not unforeseen by Sir R. Peel, and Mr.
Goulburn declared it would be necessary—the sugar duties
having been made perpetual—that other large duties equal
in amount should be voted
Yearly ; but from that time to
this the precaution has not been taken. I should not desire
any interference with the rights of the House of Lords. I
should earnestly deprecate it ; and if a course were taken
by the Government to coerce the other house, I should loot
support it ; but I believe the noble lord at the head of tha
Government only desires to determine the dissension which)
has exi,stccl, and believe that course to be correct and just,/
I

71.t,;.,5

(Cheers.)
righ hon. friend the member for the Uni-
versity of Cambridge,
who presided over the laboure of the
Committee with so =lca.'
impartiality, in his report refers
particularly to the weaken...l3g
of the power of this house
in the two last paragraphs
over matters of taxation ; auel
general statutes, which
,re )Yes been a tendenc to
y
mofaktheethreeploorrot
ehedushtioews spetrhpaettltu:i
ni.onal debt and other
consequently keciase back a large amount of opfuranpnosuao loftaxa
lion pro-
vidingtill
forthe close
st session,
on
te and
national e of
te there
charges of a permanent character. (Hear, hear.) Will
you allow me be point out the conclusions which were ar-
rived at by the right hon. member for Cambridge. In the
last of the resolutions the right hon. member says, "It
must always be remembered that the power of the house
over matters of supply, and all matters relating thereto, are
very much weakened by dealing with them in separate bills,
instead of uniting the,'n as much as possible in one mea-
sure, so as to form the nancial arrangement of the year."
And to those conclusions, to which the right hon. member
came, I now invite your concurrence. I entirely approve
of them, but for reasons which I shall now state I was, by
a very odd coincidence, the persene who in committee moved
the omission of those paragraphs. Why ? Because I
thought that the duty confided to n.s by the house was to
search for precedents, and that it wag our duty to present
to the house indisputable facts and precedents, and not to
accompany them with observations, because if observations
were permitted unanimity in a committee so constituted
would be wholly impossible, and the report would not have
been what it is, and which I trust will receive the approba-
tion of the house. But does the matter rest there ? The
last resolution moved by my noble friend at the head of the
Government was in strict conformity with the resolutions,
and was, I believe, unanimously agreed to. The hon. and
learned member would, I am afraid, have dissented from it ;
bat he would have stood almost alone. The house re-
solved that "In order to guard for the future against any
undue exercise of power by the House of Lords, and to se-
cure to the Commons their rightful control over taxation
and supply, this house has in its own hands power so to im-
pose and remit taxes and to frame bills of supply, that the
right of the Commons as to matter, manner, measure, and
time may be preserved inviolate." (Hear, hear.) With
respect to matter, measure, and time, I cordially support
the frame of the bill which has been proposed by the Go-
vernment. From very remote times the distinction as to
the rights of the Commons has been clearly defined. In
Henry IV.'s time, in the Bill of Indemnity the great prin-
ciple is laid down from which we must not depart, namely,
that the Commons has the right to grant, and that it is the
duty of the Lords to assent. Theframework of the present bill
expressly lays down and recognises this principle. "We,
your Majesty's loyal and dutiful subjects, the Commons of
Great Britain and Ireland in Parliament assembled, have,
towards raising the necessary supplies for the year, fairly
and fully resolved to give and to grant the several rates of
duty hereinafter mentioned." The Commons here exclu-
sively grant, and having laid down the fundamental princi-
ple, they go on to say, " We pray that, with the consent of
of the lords spiritual and temporal, these grants may become
law." In 1691 occurred what directly bears upon this sub-
ject. The managers of the Commons then not only con-
tended for the exclusive right of giving and granting, but
they gave their reasons. They said that the Lords had
many reasons to recommend themselves to the favour of
theirprince, and to support a figure in the country—they
were the final court of judicature ; whilst the Commons had
little besides this one of giving money and granting aid.
(Hear, hear.) Therefore, they added, anything that en-
trenched on this power had to be watched with a jealous eye.
Now that declaration of the managers of 1691 was in exact
accordance with the course now pursued by the Govern-
ment. I do not say that our rights were invaded last year,
but I say that the Lords went to the very verge of their pri-
vileges, and in my judgment the time has arrived when the
House of Commons must prevent such a practice extend-
ing any further. The hon. and learned member alluded to
the framework of the bill. I agree with the hon. and learned
member that unless the addenda to a supply bill be in part
materia a "tack" of that nature is a violation of the princi-
ple of the law. We have so decided from the earliest period.
But the right hon. member for the University of Dublin
will allow me to refer to a splendid passage in a speech he
made on a former occasion in which he alluded to the " tack"
of 1700. The right hon. member quoted Lord Macaulay, but
I have read the passage since, and I find that Macaulay lays
down very sound principles as to toe rights of the Commons.
Lord Macaulay lays it down that the Lords must either
accept or reject the whole bill, and remarks that the
measure of 1700 was in the nature of a tack, but so jealous
were the Commons that they insisted on its being passed.
Lord Macaulay graphically describes the scene. All the
pissages leading to the house were closed, and the sergeant
had orders to stand at the door and see that no member left
the house. The house called over the list of the privy council
in order that they might know who counselled the King to
veto the act ; and so this bill of 1700, although being in the
nature of a tack, yet stands in the statute book, and was
carried immediately after the resolution. Now, sir, as to
the invasion of the powers of the Lords, the right hon. gen-
tlemen opposite have contended that the best way of dis-
cussing this budget was as a whole, and before the Speaker
1 ayes the chair. To-night the budget is being discussed as
a whole, and there is no invasion of the privileges of the
House of Lords in so discussing the measure. It is open to
the Lords to reject the bill as a whole or a part, but if they
alter a part it will be equivalent to the rejection of the whole
measure. We do not fetter the power of the Lords in assent-
ing or rejecting, but we do say you must not alter. I do
not wish on this occasion to enter into party topics, tut
must say that if hon. gentlemenopposite, strong as they are
in this house and perhaps stronger in the other, think that
the time has come for withdrawing the confidence of this
house from the present Government, they could seize no
fitter time for deposing the Government than by procuring
thil rejection of the bill; but if they are not prepared to in
cur that responsibility, then I say that as good subjects
they are bound to allow the executive to deal witb the
finances of the country on their responsibility, and in the
manner which appears to them to be the best suited to the
exigencies of the year. (Hear, hear.) I have heard some-
thing about a hustinefte cry, " Down with the paper-duty
repeal ; up with tea-duty reduction." I don't want to raise
invidious hustings cries ; but if I were asked my opinion,
should say that a cry of " Up with the Lords, and down
with the Commons" would be one which could meet with
only one response on all the hustings in the country.
(Hear, hear.) I should not be afraid to go to the country
against such a cry, which I fully believe would be repudi-
ated by a tremendous majority. (Cheers.)
Lord J. MANNERS was not of opinion that the house
would follow the advice of the right hon. baronet. The
right hon. baronet had been challenged by his hon. and
learned friend the member for Sligo, and he had not re•
sponded to the challenge; ha had not shown a single pre-
cedent for sending back again a bill that had been rejected
by the Lords. The right hon. baronet had quoted Lord
Macaulay, but he (Lord J. Manners) would, with the per-
Mission of the house, refer to Mr. Hallam, who might be
supposed to have Wien a dispassionate view of their pri-
vileges. The noble lord proceeded to quote at length from
Hallam's " Constitutional History" to show that the Lords
had not exceeded their privileges in altering a money bill,
and that such acts on their parts had frequently been sub-
mitted to by the Commons. Turning to the bill itself, he
contended that they were entitled to discuss a budget with-
out any political or party accusations. This year they
could take the budget on financial considerations alone,
whereas last year they had one which was complicated with
political questions and a one-sided French treaty. Assum-
ing, for the sake of argument, that in the budget the Go-
vernment held out a fair prospect of a surplus, what, he
would ask, would be the financial position of the country at
the end of the year under the budget as now proposed to
them ? The right hon. gentleman proposed a surplu- ot
aboue.E4oo,olo, but by what mode was that arrived at?
In order to repeal the duty on paper, the toiling millions
of the country were to be called upon to pay an additional
fiverence per pound on tea, and the class removed only
one degree from them were to pay one penny in the
pound on the income tax. That was the sum total of the
budget, admitting all the calculations of the Chancellor
of the Exchequer to be correct. What were the cir-
cumstances under which this improvident repeal of
taxation was proposed to them ? They had heard from
the noble lord at the head of the Government that there
was nothing in the aspect of foreign powers which should
deter them from making this large and permanent re •
duction in their financial resources. He thought, how-
ever, there was great ground for nervous apprehension when
we looked around us, as to what the future would bring
forth—(hear, hear)—and he was afraid as a necessary con-
sequence of this budget we should eventually be burdened
with a Is. income tax. The speech of the hon. and learned
gentleman (Mr. Macdonogh) went so fully and ably into
the constitutional question that he did not think it neces-
sary to criticise particularly the form and framework of the
budget. It was admitted on all hands that it had been
framed. with the object of preventing the House of Lords
considering this one element of the budget which had met
with so little favour in the country, -and had Leen nearly
condemned in that house. He had listened with consider.
able interest to the very animated speech in which the
Chancellor of the Exchequer replied to or rather anticipated
the arguments of his hon. friend the member for Liverpool.
The right hon. gentleman, following a precedent which
seemed to him (Lord J. Manners) a very inconvenient one,
introduced to their attention some specimens of new menu •
facture which he wished them to understand would be
brought into beneficial use if the paper duty were repealed.
There was nothing too extravagant for the Chancellor of
the Exchequer to say in favour of this particular manufac-
ture which had for the moment attracted his attention. The
material • was said to be stronger than iron, cheaper than
lead, and impervious to the weather. It was to combine
every excellence of iron and lead, and in short, the conclu-
sion left on his mind was that the right hon. gentleman
intended, provided only the legi •
slature would consent to
abolish the duty on paper, to introduce this new material
in all our arsenals and counting-houses, and that we were
about to deck our ships in garments of this imperishable
stuff. But he must say this system of advertising par-
ticular inventions of particular inventors was not con-
sistent with the dignity of the house nor with the great-
ness of the subjects which they were now discussing.
If the House of Commons had this year the courage and
good sense to do for themselves that which the House of
lords did for thew loot year, they should take
a wane

Vr, MAY 14, 1861.

which would not jeopardise any great manufacture likely to to that resolution you cannot doubt that it is the right of
spring out of the remission of the paper eitity. It .was a the House of Commons to propose the manner' , mount, and
matter also for the consideration of the house whether, if nature of taxes. (Hear.) As was explained very clearly
paper was to be turned to the manufacture of the multi- by my right hon. friend the member for Carlfele, on the
farious articles mentioned by the Chancellor of the Ex- subject of precedents, in' the eat ly part of the year 1787 such
chequer, there would not be so much the less for the more an instance occurred. But, as happened to Mr. Pitt, he had
important purposes to which it was at present devoted. the year before shown his sense of the privileges of the
They were told by the Chancellor of the Exchequer that Commons when it was said in the Lords there was a deficit,
the paper duty was a retrograde duty, and the right hon. and he refused to send up the accounts of the Commons to
gentleman had also told them that, whatever the circum- be examined by the Lords. Then Mr. Pitt accomplished a
stances, the paper duty must go on increasing. Which of memorable act—a commercial treaty with France, which
these statements was the house to take ? Was it to be • was of great benefit to both countries. After a most delicate
deemed a progressive duty, or was it to be denounced as and careful investigation into the 'customs and excise Mr.
win thy of condeinnation on the ground of its retrograde Pitt passed 3,700 resolutions and the excise duties were re-
qualities ? lie could understand this argument as applied duced. Well, he likewise imposed taxes in the same bill,
to some excise duties, which, if not retrograde, were eta- and when that bill went up to the House of Lords, Lord
tionary. Malt, for instance, in 1831 produced £5,036,667, Carlisle objected that the bill contained three principal ob-
and in 1858, in spite of the improvements that had taken jects—a commercial treaty of which they approved; con-
place in the manufacture, and in spite of the increase of the solidation, which they did not approve; and, above all,
population, the amount was only £5,592,624. But the paper taxes, to which they might be disposed to cbject. Let the
duty, which produced in 1831 £730,000, produced in bill then, he contended, be divided into three separate parts,
1858 £1,281,023. Again, malt in 1836 produced and let the house go into committee on each object. That
£5,699,878, as compared with £5,592,624 in 1858; but paper speech was answered by Lord Sydney, who was at that
increased in every one of the subsequent years, with one time a Secretary of State, and he said that all three mat-
exception only, and the result was as follows :—in 1836 it ters belonged to one arrangement, and tended to one end,
produced £841,131; in 1858, X 1,282,023; in 1859, £1,281,023; and that was the fact, and the question then raised was ap-
in 1860, £1,451,258; and in 1861 it reached the hitherto plicable to the present bill, because all these things formed •
unapproachable point of X 1,462,825. This was the tax that parts of one arrangement, and tended to one end, viz., the
was about to be repealed as a comparativ, ly unproductive settlement of the finances for the year. The opponents of
source of revenue, and let the house °bite, ye what would be that bill divi led the house, and were beaten by 29 to 7,and
the effect of the repeal. It had been the policy of the therefore the Lords themselves, taking a fall and distinct*
house during the last few years to abolish innumerable view of all their privileges, decided by more than three to
duties of customs and excise, and the result had been that one that they ought to consider the bill as a whole. Was
the taxation of the coun ry was now placed upon compare- that all? Was there no other precedent.? It was that the
Lively very few articles. And let it be remembered that house ought not to repeal and lay on taxes in the same bill.
every fresh duty they altogether repealed must have the Another great measure of Mr. Pitt's was the introduction
effect of rivetting still more firmly the duty on the re- of the income tax. He had very much increased the assessed
maining taxable articles. Therefore the effect of repeal- taxes, but his measure had failed, being evaded in various
ing this duty on paper must and would be to prevent ways, and he conceived the idea of obtaining the necessary
those remissions in the other excise duties, or indeed in any supplies for carryi' gore the arduous war in which the coun-
other duties, which might in the opinion of the house try was then engaged in a totally different manner, and in-
have a better claim for repeal than the excise duty on paper. troduced a measure, the 39 Geo. 111., c. 13, which began
He thought there were few in that house who would, from with the total repeal of the act of the preceding year, which
the extraneous prilitical considerations to which he had ad- levied the additional assessed taxes, and then proceeded to
vetted, and which ought not to be regarded in discussing impose an incometax to provide for the revenue of the year.
financial questions in the house, support the repeal of this (Hear, hear.) In 1807 there was a bill in respect of certain
tax. Who was there that would maintain, that in itself duties of excise in Ireland, altering various duties, increas-
and by itself the duty bn paper was so much more obnoxious ing some and diminishing others. One of the clauses was a
than any other of the duties left upon the statute book that simple provision abolishing altogether the duties on ale and
ought to have priority in remission? That was not the ge- beer in Ireland. This was an act in conformity with the
neral view in the house—it was net the general view enter- one now proposed. The income tax was increased, and the
tamed by the country at large ; and with regard to the opi- duties on tea and sugar retained, awl the duty on paper
nions of foreigners, who might, be regarded as impartial totally repealed. It is plain, therefore that we aro proceed-
judges, a well-known writer in the Journal des Debats de- ing according to precedent, but we are met by the observe-
scribed the application of the surplus by Mr. Gladstone as a tion that it is not a convenient mode of doing it. It limits
measure of conciliation to the radical press, which had given the power of the House of LordS, said the right hon. gen-
rise to universal discontent in the country. The right hon. tleman who spoke last, and he even went so far as to say
gentleman had on a former occasion referred'in contemptu- it was an insult to them. I cannot see how it can be an
ous terms to the expression of opinion the country had given insult to send them up a bill similar to two bills which Mr.
in regard to the budget through the authorised means of Pitt has sent up. Nobody cau deny that the House of
petitions; but he (Lord J. Manners) did not know how Lords has a perfect right to reject a bill sent up by the
they could better arrive at a knowledge of the views of the Commons. They have always asserted that right, and it
country than from the petitions presented to the house. has never been questioned. My right hon. friend near me
Now, if any one referred to the papers sent round that (Sir J. Graham) said it was an extreme right which ought
morning he would see that the number of petitions in favour not to be resorted to in ordinary cases. The real question
of the financial scheme of the Government fell infinitely before us is, whether the house has used that discretion
short of those which condemned it. The right hon. gentle- wisely or not, and whether it is an extreme case. My
man the member for Carlisle (Sir J. Graham) seemed opinion is the other way; but I am not going to complain
anxious that this question should be made a party struggle, either of the House of Lords or of the House of Commons
but he fox one should very much regret any such result. on this occasion. lam quite satisfied that they considered
The Opposition side of the house had shown during the pre- the revenue derivable from the tax on paper to be necessary
sent session every disposition to support her Majesty's for the service of the country, and on that ground rejected
Government, and to maintain them in office. The noble the bill. The question for the house now is, what will be
lord at the head of the Government, he was certain, the case for the future. Admitting that the House of
would not have forgotten a certain memorable evening Lords have an extreme right, is it desirable that, having
when, attacked from behind with a vigour seldom excelled been successful in doing that for which they have no pre
in that house, he owed his safety to the mediation and decedent whatever in rejecting a bill for removing a tax which
fence that came from the Opposition benches. •He did they thought necessary for the purpose of raising sufficient
not then share in the desire of the right hon. gentle- revenue for .lae year, is it desirable to admit the House of
man ; but, at the same time, he believed that never had an Lords to the possession of equal functions with the Com-
occasion during the session been presented more important mons in respect to the imposition or remission of taxes?
than this, and never had there been an occasion when it (Hear, hear.) That is the extent to which the right hon.
more behoved the House. of Commons to refuse its consent member for Stroud went last year, and the hon. gentlemen
to the attempt which was now being made to sacrifice to on the other side of the house do not speak quite so plainly
the contingency of party alike financial safety and constitu- as the right hon gentleman the member for Stroud. It is
tional rights. (Hear.) They had given the budget the care- plain th it they consider the House of Commons so ill-
ful, minute, and impartial consideration which the import- advised and inconsiderate in financial matters that it is ne-
a.nceof the Chancellor of the Exchequer's proposals deserved, cessary to send their financial schemes to the House of
and they found in them the unmistakeable signs of a poli- Lords to be settled by an arrangement between the two
tical origin and a fatal disregard to the best interests of the houses. That is what I deny. My belief is, that the great
nation. (Hear.) In sorrow, then, rather than in anger, they privilege which was maintained by our ancestors, and as-
said to the right hon. gentleman, " Take back your budget, serted by the acts which establish their privileges, it is our
end reserving to times of more undoubted surplus sour duty to maintain for the good of the trade and commerce of
glowing visions of theoretical finance, submit to us a pro--athe country, which are so much affected by our financial
position which may at once satisfy the best requirements arrangements. If, when we have determined certain taxes
of the people and maintain unimpaired the financial re- shall be altered or remitted, the House of Lords is to say
sources and credit of the country." (Cheers.) they shall be retained, nothing but confusion can result.
Sir F. GOLDSMID supported the second reading of the That must be the inevitable result of taking the proceedings
bill, of last year as a precedent, and not to take any means by
Mr. BOLT thought the course adopted by the Govern, which we can secureour ancient privileges. It is a right which
ment novel, and calculated to nullity the action of the we not only have, but which we ought to exercise, and if w•
other branch of the Legislature, which he deprecated, be- put all these measures into one bill the House of Lords must
cause, although he admitted that the House of Commons either accept or reject. The hon. and learned gentleman
had the fullest right of taxation, it was with the qualification made some supposed proposition of relieving the country
that it had the assent of the other branches of the Legis- from all imposts, and putting on an Bs. income tax. Ido
lature. - not believe that any House of Commons would do such a
Mr. COLLIER said that there was no case in which the thing as that, and to make the attempt would be rash and
Souse of Lords had rejected taxing bills en purely Ilium- injurious to the country. 'Notwithstanding the setting up
cial grounds, and therefoie he thought the course propossd of direct taxation, which it is said we are doing, I find that
of placing all the resolutions on the Budget in ono bill was the indirect taxation has increased from £33,000,000 to
legal and constitutional. £40,000,000, and certainty that does not lo'ok as if we are
Mr. WHITESIDE expressed his surprise at the bold destroy ing the revenue. I thing the question of the reduction
tine of the hon. and learned gentleman in his denial of of the tea as against the paper duties has been discussed
the right of the Peers to act as they di 1 last session, en ugh, and I shall leave the matter in the hands of my right
remembering that on very high constitutional autho- hon. friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer, but at the
rity the Nestor of the Hous a of Lords had declared that same time I cannot help being surprised at the rapidity of
history and precedent alike justified the course which the change in the opinions of hon, gentlemen opposite re-
they took. (Hear, hear.) The right hon, baronet (Sir J. specting the supplies. For some days nothing was heard
Graham) was not prepared to assert that the House of but inquiries after the surplus, and its existence was denied
Lords had exceeded their privileges, but while he admitted altoge they. It was said that it was an entire delusion
they had not acted in an unconstitutional manner, he still When they had gone on proclaiming that for some days they
called upon the house to adopt measures t 3 prevent their announced that they should not be surprised if after all
doing the same thing again. The right hon. baronet had there was a surplus, and not only that, but the surplus
quoted Mr. Pitt's conduct in connection with the French would afford a million and a quarter more for the reduction
treaty, when it was said that the Lords had attempted of taxation. But now after the division on the very pees-
to sever two bills--the Consolidation of the Customs tion, and when the Chancellor of the Exchequer had stated
and the consideration of the treaty. Now, Mr. the manner in which the surplus is to be disposed of, we
Fox on that occasion was of opinion that the two are met again by the old cry of no surplus at all. How
measures ought to have been divided, and Mr. can it be said that we propose to diminish the revenue by
Grenville objected to the severance of the bills. reducing the paper duties? Let the house look at what
The right hon. gentleman turned to another subject and took place between 1844 and 18-54, There was in that
said the noble lord (Lord 3. Russell) had done a very wise period a total abolition of duty on various articles, includ-
thing in providing for a permanent duty, but the right hon. ing glass, bricks, and soap, and that reduction of taxation
gentleman said there was still a drawback in that arrange- amounted to 21 millions. At the same time, other taxes
ment. Lord Mansfield said in his judicial capacity that a were put on, amounting to £1,700,000. Does it follow
resolution of the Howe of Commons he would not regard that because of that reduction there was a deficiency of
the result of making a tax a permanent one. What he £BOO,OOO ? No ; on the contrary, in consequence of the
(Mr. Whiteside) wished them to observe was this, that the greater employment of labour and greater consumption
House of Commons could not deal with it annually. Where of taxable articles, instead of there being a deficiency of
was there a bill, he would ask, within 50 years past, drawn £BOO,OOO, there was actually an excess of £500,000, and so
up in the present form e (Hear, hear.) The right hon. ba. when this reduction shall take place, instead of there
ronet, with his logical mind, would say, why did the right being a total loss from the abolition of this duty, which
hon. gentleman (the Chancellor of the Exchequer) do the so materially interferes with manufactures, we may ex-
matter right last year and wrong on the present occasion ? pect from the relief which will be given that the revenue
(Hear.) The noble lord who had been twice Lord Chan- will rise again to a higher amount. (Hear, hear.) Some
cellor (Lord Lyndhurst), and whose judgment was looked persons were employed in making bricks and many on
up to by half the civilised world, showed unmistakably that soap, and nobody seemed to think that any harm would
the Lords had the right to take the course which they happen to the country if these branches of industry were
wisely pursued in the last session. Was it just—was it relieved, but the moment you come to paper it is imagined
constitutional—was it wise to compel the Lords to that some great calamity is to happen. Paper may be em-
adopt the bill so framed as the present bill was, played for purposes different from bricks and glass, but as
and to give their assent to a measure which in regards the industry which is employed in its production
their consciences they felt bound to reject in there is no difference whatever. Men are employed and
the last session of Parliament s (Hear.) Now, was not the receive wages the same as in the case of bricks and glass,
bill upon the table one of a most objectionable description ? but there is some hobgoblin which tikes the shape of a
Why should such a bill be brought in in a committee of penny newspaper, which always seems to frighten hon.
ways and means for the supplies e f the year, instead of gentlemen opposite into a continued opposition to the abo-
being introduced and considered in the ordinary way of any lition of the duty, (" Oh," from the Opposition.) It is
bill for the repeal of a particular duty? (Hear, hear.) He impossible not to see in the course of these debates a de-
firmly believed that nothing but an overwhelming sense of sire to depreciate the measures and to injure the political
duty could have induced the House of Lords t a throw out reputation of my right hon. friend who sits near me. (Oh,
the bill which the right hon. gentleman had sent lap to from the Opposition, and cheers from the Liberal benches.)
them last session. When the right hon. baronet held out Well, sir, I think it is the duty of every colleague of
a threat as to what they might expect by an appeal to the my right hon. friend to resist that attempt; and, be-
country, he (Mr. Whiteside) would answer that taunt by lieving that he has always employed his great talents for
saying, " Wee be to the present Government if they went to the benefit of the people of this country—believing that
the country with a cry of paper against tea and sugar. the people will appreciate his exertions on their behalf—l
(Opposition cheers.) Believing the present bill to be intro- think that their gratitude for these efforts will stifle all the
duced with the view of insulting the Upper Chamber, and accusations which party has made, and that my right hon.
of the Chancellor of the Exchequer taking his revenge for friend will have an enduring reputation amongst those who
the defeat he sustained last session, he felt bound to give have admired his splendid abilities and his devotion to
levery opposition to the course which the Government had the welfare and well-being of the country. (Loud cheers.)
determined upon pursuing. (Opposition cheers.) Lord It. CECIL, who spoke amid much interruplion,
Lord J. RUSSELL—The right hon gentleman who has condemned the course of proceeding of that house towards
just sal down has argued the case with great ingenuity. the Peers, upon whom, he said, they were now making a
But even the ingenuity of the right hon. gentleman can most unjust attack. All the main questions of the day
never argue away the constitutional privileges of this house. were now becoming financial measures, and if the Commons
(Hear.) I hare heard in the course of this debate many interposed its privileges in all these measures the functions
arguments
.
against the course the Government intend to of the House of Lords would be so cramped and limited
pursue ; but many of those arguments were far wide of the that it would be excluded from the arena of legislative deli
subject under consideration, and were directed evidently to beraticn.
. very
ii able b
referredl e speech
inreglat
rids
treeatlhlye
arguedea a
emeofs most con-
1807;n- timethe htohna.t mweenrb er
should
some other than the measure before the house. (Hear.) Mr. DU CANE moved the adjournment of .
Now the hon. and learned gentleman who opened the de - The CHANCELLOR of the EXCIIEQUER—I hope
April. Thee
but there the case occurred in which the passing of the financial measures, which have been already unusually pro-
eblaaateivtheliys eveningagaina
pro-
malt tax was joined with the question of the legality of cer- longed, before we accede to the farther adjournment of a
to the
taro acts of the Auditor of the Exchequer, and it was quite dfscussion in which no issue has been raised. (Hear, hear.)
t aintaack
certain that was a question by itself and not a question of Indeed, lam not aware that it is intended to make any
money or supply, and therefore the Lords were perfectly motion or offer any opposition on this stage of the bill. The
willre view reconsiderth e proceedings proposal.
while on the one hand it is our bounden duty to assert our Government have put aside all business of every descrip-
right in rejecting the bill. (Hear.) I quite admit that financial statement was made on the Bth
.of A
ancient privileges—(hear)—on the other hand, the Lords tion in order t-,go ou with the financial business. The
should have a right of asserting theirs ; but forcing the plan contained only two propositions, neither of a very novel
Lords by means of money bills has been abandoned for or complex character, and yet we are now only at the second
nearly a century and a half. (Hear.) But all the argu- reading of the bill, and have consumed a sixth part
ments against tacking fell to the ground, and have no ap- of the Session ; 17 days were occupied before the
plication. (Hear.) I take it that the question before the Speaker was allowed to leave the chair—a fact
house is whether we are justified by the law of Parliament entirely unprecedented in our financial history. In 1853,
in introducing into a bill several measures of finance bear- when very extensive propositions were proposed, after seven
ing on the financial arrangements of the year, and whether days we were allowed to proceed to the discussion of them
it is right and expedient to exercise that power. (Hear.) in Ways and Means. in 1845, when the proposals were also
Now, hon. gentlemen who agreed last year almost unani- extensive, the discussion itt Committee of Ways and Means
mously to the resolutions Proposed by my noble friend at was commenced after three days. The Government wished
the head of the Government Seem now t o have forgotten to carry on the financial business from day to day,
what those resolutions were. (aeon) The first of those but lion members would not give way. Never until
resolutions was that if was the right of the House of Corn- to-night have we heard of this constitutional question.
mons to grant aid and supplies to the Crown, and that that (~ Oh," and ".Hear.") At least it has not been debated
right is in the Commons alone. (Hear.) Well, if yell agree on previous nights, But no issue is challenged 94

the tlesetion, nor am I awe :e that any is to be re-4d.
(Hear.) I need hardly tell the house that great puelic in-
jury and annoyance arises from a discussion which is pro-
tracted beyond all precedent. The revenue of the Customs
is suffering very perceptibly from the uncertainty attendant
on proposals involving changes in our financial system. On
account also of the airangements which have to be made
for levying the income tax, much inconvenience is caused
to the public service by these delays. It must not be for-
gotten that there are other stages through which the bill
must pass, and that this is not the last opportunity for dis-
cussion. I certainly must, on the part of the Government,
objeo to the motion of the hon. gentleman, and I trust that
if he does not withdraw it, the house will show themselves
sensible of the necessity of proceeding with the financial
business without further delay.
Mr. DISRAELI—I think it is not desirable that there
should be any division upon a question of this kind, and
therefore I agree with the Chancellor of the Exchequer that
it will be well fur the house calmly to consider, and not to
decide passionately upon, the course which they will now
adopt. The Chancellor of the Exchequer says that it be-
comes us to consider in a comprehensive manner what has
occurred during the last month with respect to the measures
brought forward by the Government. He tells us that in
no other instance that he can recall, and he has referred to
the case of 1853 and other years, has so great a delay taken
place in the consideration of the financial measures of the
Government. He will pardon me for saying that, with re-
spect to measures of this character, the house has never be-
fore been placed in the position in which we have been
placed this year. (Cheers.) There have, no doubt, been
equally important measures of finance brought forward by
the Government—l will even admit that there have been
more important, larger, and more extensive measures; but
they have never been connected with a combination of cir-
cumstances such as we witness this year, and from which it
arises that this house, and this house alone, can decide upon
the merits of the policy recommended. (Hear, hear.)
Under these circumstances, and considering that the other
house is to have no power of revising the measures
of the Government, it does become this house—the
single house which is to decide upon the policy of
the Government—to proceed with caution and delibera-
tion. (Hear, hear.) There cannot be a situation conceived
in which caution and consideration could be more t equisite
and more urgently demanded. The Chancellor of the Ex-
chequer has again mentioned the great inconveniences to
the finances and to the trade and commerce of the country
which may arise from these delays--delays, let me remind
him, of deliberation. Now, although the right hon. gen-
tleman has more than once touched upon the subject, I
have not been able to realise any clear or precise idea as to
what those inconveniences are. First, let us consider the
income tax. No doubt inconvenience must arise to the
Government from depending on a tax levied under a law
which has become extinct ; but that is not the fault of the
House of Commons. (Hear, hear.) The Act under which
the income tax is raised had expired before these measures
were brought forward, and if it was matter of urgency that
it should be immediately renewed, why did not the Chan-
cellor of the Exchequer introduce a bill on that subject, and
ask us to pass it immediately ? (Cheers.) But I am bound
to say, speaking upon such a subject with all diffidence, and
all deference to the Chancellor of the Exchequer, that, from
such slight experience as I have of the consequences of that
Aet having expired before the financial exposition has been
offered to the house, no inconvenience can arise from that
circumstance. The action must necessarily be of an cx post
facto character, and the Chancellor of the Exchequer has
already announced to the house that he will take care that
no one who has received his last quarter's dividends shall
escape its action. Therefore, practically speaking, I may, I
think, venture to say that the house may dismiss from their
minds the idea that any inconvenience to the public service
I will result from the expiration of the income tax act. Then I
come to the great taxes—the great duties upon tea and sugar.
What possible incon venienc e can arise from the course which
the house is taking in deliberating upon the measures of the
Government with regard to those taxes ? We all know that
immediately the resolutions with respect to those duties are
passed by the Committee of Ways and Means the Govern-
ment acts upon them. At this moment those duties are
levied according to the resolutions passed in Committee
of Ways and Means. Is it that the Government are afraid
that there will be another attempt to reduce those duties ?
Why, a Government in the proud position which they
occupy with respect to that subject may defy any
attempt of that kind, and I do not suppose that the Chan-
cellor of the Exchequer will pretend that at this moment
the Government and the house are waiting with anxiety to
see whether another effort will be made by the Opposition
to reduce those taxes. Although the law under which they
will ultimately be levied is not passed, those duties are paid,
and I do not doubt that this very day a considerable
revenue has been received from them in virtue of the reso-
Jutiens which we have passed. But, then, I come te
another branch of trade, in which the Chancellor of the
Exch quer will tell me that very great inconvenience and
very great loss will be occasioned, both to the trade and to
the Treasury, by the time which we are taking in consider-
ing what course we ought to adopt—l mean the paper trade.
But does the Chancellor of the Exchequer seriously and
really make that a plea for calling upon the house to come
to a resolution ? (An hon. Member—" He has not said a
word about it.") The other night the right hon. gentle-
man particularly referred to it. lie did not dwell upon that,
but he dwells upon the great inconvenience and injury to
trade which will be occasioned by our not passing these
measures. Is it that he really refers to the tea and sugar
,luties ? If he does not mean it, there aro a great many
gentlemen in this house who believe that the paper trade is
very much injured by our deliberating upon these measures.
But I beg the house clearly to understand that that is not
the fact—that neither the trade nor the Exchequer can pos-
sit.ly suffer by this suspen, e. It is quite clear that the trade
does not believe that it suffers, because of two members of
,his house who are intimately connected with that trade,
and who represent different opinions one more extreme than
the other, with respect to the policy pursued by the Go-
vernment, one made a motion the other night which was to
occasion a great delay in the measures of the Chancellor of
the Exchequer, and, therefore, the branch of the trade which
he represented, more especially as concerns Ireland, does
not apprehend injury from delay ; and the other, who is a
warm supporter of the Chancellor of the Exchequer, the
hon. member for Abingdon (Mr. Norris), has for one of those
nights devoted to independent members, but of which her
Majesty's Government now so much grudge them the
enjoyment—(cheers)—for next Tuesday given notice of a
motion for the appointment of a committee to inquire into
the paper trade. Therefore he does not anticipate that our
delay will cause any injury to his trade. The Chancellor
of the Exchequer knows perfectly well that from the
system of drawbacks it is impossible that the Exchequer
can be injured. I beg to remind the house that the other
night, when the hon. member for Honiton (Mr. Moffett)
told the Chancellor of the Exchequer that he would by
October lose £500,000 or £610,000 upon the paper duty, the
right hon. gentleman, who knew his business, told him that
he was quite mistaken, and that he should not lose a single
farthing. Now, i have gone through all the great taxes,
the income-tax, the tea and sugar duties, and the paper
duty. What other interests are there that any one
can pretend are placed in jeopardy by the House of Com-
mons performing the greatest duty which can devolve
upon it—that of duly considering measures of taxa-
tion ? Is there, then, any foundation for the statements,
'he ambiguous and at the same time the menacing state-
ments, in which the Chancellor of the Exchequer is so
and of indulging? (Hear, hear.) What reasons are
there for asking the house to come to a precipitate con
elusion ? I beg the noble lord the First Minister to con-
sider this. It is his opinion that the other House of Par-
liament is to exercise no judgment upon these questions.
Be it so. I will on this occasion admit the whole case of
the Government. I will enter into none of the controversy
which has taken place to-night upon what is called the
constitutional question. Ad alit not only that it is the un-
deniable right of the House of Commons to originate Money
Bills, but that the House of .Lords must pass them under
all circumstances. Take the broadest view of the case
and what is the deduction, what is the moral—
the inevitable moral—that must be drawn ? That
it becomes the Prime Minister, under these circum-
stances, to bring forward no measures of finance which he
does not believe will meet with the undoubted support of
those who represent the people in this house. If the
will of this house alone is to decide these questions, a
wise and politic Minister would not bring forward measures
which could only be passed by a very bare majority. (Hear.)
If the undeniable privilege of our house is that we are to
have sole authority in these matters, our responsibility
becomes proportionately greater, and proportionately greater
becomes the responsibility of the Minister who leads this
house, and advises this great council of the nation.
But what has taken place to-night ? The Chancellor of
the Exchequer says that there is no issue before us. No
issue before us A Mielster rises and moves the second read-
ing of a bill which includes the whole of his financial scheme,
and on the first night of the debate says that there is no issue
before us. (Cheers.) Is not the second reacting of this
financial scheme an issue large enough ? And what right
has the Minister to presume that there may be inc division
challenged upon the merits of his policy ? What right has
he to make any assumption of the kind ? (Cries of " Divide,
the house
divide !" answered by cheers.) re
Let mem
that we come down to-night to discuss the ind
financial policy
of the Minister. The hon. and learned gentleman who
opened the debate confined himself to the consideration of
the constitutional question. He dealt with that question in
a clear and vigorous speech, well entitled to the attention of
the house, but he sedulously guarded himself against
moving an amendment upon that point, and left the large
issue open. Upon that large issue not a word has been
spoken to-night but by a Minister of the Crown. A Minis-
ter of the Crown has made a speech upon the financial
scheme of the Government. He went Mb great detail in
his examination of the budget, and called upon me to answer
his reproaches, and state the policy that I intended to pur-
sue. With this challenge still ringing in my ears, which
we have had no opportunity of answering—(cheers)—the
Chancellor of the Exchequer rises and expresses his sad sur-
prise that the House of Commons should discuss his budget.
He gave no ground or reason for his objection. The hon.
gentleman may be pursuing a policy that is honourable
alike to the country and to himself, but he is at the same
time taking,if not an unprecedented,at least a very unusual
1G91111e3 agd ho ought to be the last mai), to grudge u 4 the

fullest 17, v.-inflation of his measures. I hope most sincerely
that we shall n tbe put to the trouble of a division, and
that the noble lord at the head of the Government will feel
that it is for his own honour and that of the house that this
debate should be adjourned. (Cheers.)
Lord PALMERSTON—I must admit that therighthon.
gentleman had made a very convincing si,eech, but the con•.
victims that it has brought to mind is the very opposite of
the conclusion to which he would have us arrive. (A laugh.)
If I understood the right hon. gentleman rightly, he does
not intend to dispute the past of the budget connected
with the income-tax, nor does he intend to revive the ques-
tion of the tea duties, nor will he object to the repeal of
the paper duties. (Mr. Disraeli intimated his dissent )
The rk_ht hon. gentleman stated that these matters had
been decided—("No I")—and that on the resolutions of the
house the duties had been levied as a matter of course. The
right hon. gentleman has not announced any amendment
er any intention of objecting to the second reading, but he
has simply stated that he wishes for discussion. The right
hon. gentleman criticises the statement that no issue has
been raised. But I say that no issue has bens raised.
(Cheers.) There has been a long debate, but no one has
announced any intention of opposing the second reading.
The only question is whether those who object in general
to the financial arrangements of the Government, or
whether those who object to combine the financial measures
in one measure, shall have an opportunity of fairly discuss-
ing the matter. My right hon. friend has correctly stated
that there will be many occasions of discussing these points.
There will be first the motion, sir, for your leaving the
chair to go into committee. On that occasion there will be
a full opportunity of discussing all the details of the general
financial arrangements of my right hon. friend. On the
other hand, those who object to the arrangement by which
all the financial proposals are placed in one bill, might make
their objections in committee on the bill. Therefore, I must
say we have heard no reason for the adjournment of the
debate. (Cheers.) If indeed it could be said that the second
reading was opposed—if notice of some amendment had
been given, and if it could be alleged that members had had
no opportunity of stating their reasons, that might be a rea-
son for adjourning this debate. But, as we are all agreed
that the second reading is to pass without a division—(op-
position cries of "Oh I")—silence gives consent, and as
every one is silent in regard to any opposition to the second
reading, I am entitled to assume that no such intention
exists. (Oh, oh I and cheers.) That bung the case, I shall
certainly object to the adjournment. (Cheers.)
Mr. NEWDEGATE agreed that the house was now in a
most awkward position; but who had caused it? He objected
to the form of this Supply Bill as touching the privileges
of this house. The house was now suffering the incon-
venience of having all these proposals consolidated in
one Bill. If they had been submitted severally, there
would not have been this delay. As it was, the privileges of
the house had been invaded. The object of the Govern-
ment was to make every financial question a question of
confidence in the Government and against such a mode of
coercing the House of Commons he would protest. (Hear.)
The house then divided, when the numbers were—
For the adjournment. 164
Against it
Majority....
Mr. BENTINCK said they had often heard that a bad
cause made a bad advocate, and he was bound to say he did
not think it possible that any combinationof circumstances
• could have made the noble lord (Palmerston) so bad an ad-
vocate as he had shown himself to be in this case. (Hear.)
The noble lord's argument amounted to this--that they
were to prejudge their decision without discussing it. He
seemed to think that, because no public notice had been
given of a determination to oppose the second reading, no
debate ought to take place upon it. He demurred to that
reasoning, and moved that the house do now adjourn.
(Divide, divide.)

Lord PALMERSTON was sorry that he was to bad an
adv• Tate, but was somewhat consoled by the result of the
division. (Laughter.) If the hon. member meant to take
the sense of the house upon the second reading of the bill
he could not have a better opportunity of doing so than the
present—(a laugh)—as there was not likely to be so full a
house upon any future occasion. If he thought that by op-
posing the adjournment he was precluding members from
the fullest discussion of the bill, he would willingly bow to
the wishes of the minority, but ample opportunities would
occur hereafter for discussing the measure, and he therefore
felt himself bound to oppose the adjournment. (Cries or
Divide.)

The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER was sur-
prised to hear the right hon. gentleman (Mr. Disraeli) say
that the public interests could not suffer by delay. Labori-
ous and troublesome processes were to be gone through
before the new assessment for the income-tax could be
made, and if delay took place it would be difficult to get
those processes completed so as to collect the income-tar
for the year within the year. (Hear, hear.) It was there-
fore true that an unusual time had been occupied, and oc-
cupied for the most part in a discussion in which no issue
had been raised—in which no challenge had been given to
the house; and it was true, on the other hand, that an
injury was done both to the revenue and the trade
of the country by the prolonged uncertainty consequent on
the continuance of these debates. (Hear, hear.)
A division then took place on the question. " That this
House do now adjourn."

For the adjournment
Against .... • • • • 233
Majority
-88
Colonel DICKSON had watched this debate with much
interest. The subject was a very important one, and one
on which they could not too long dwell. (Laughter, and
" Hear, hear.") He must protest ogainst the appeal made
by the Chancellor of the Chancellor when the right hon.
gentleman said that it was for the convenience of the
State that they 'should close this debate. (Hear, hear.)
That was an argument which the- right hon. gentleman
had no right to bring forward ; for he should have con-
sidered all the consequences before he introduced his
Budget, which was a most detrimental one to the interests
of the country, and me( ially to the interests of Ireland.
He begged leave to move the adjournment of the debate.
(" Oh! oh!" and " Hear.")

Lord PALMERSTON said—lt is useless, I know, to
persist (cheers) when gentlemen are determined to
prevent measures fl ora being proceeded with at this hour
(1 o'clock). As those who t ucceed will be entitled to the
glory of the conflict, I beg to second the motion.
(Laughter and cheers.)

The debate was accordingly adjourned to Thursday next.

SUPPLY.
The report was brought up aud agreed to.
SALMON FISHERIES (SCOTLAND) BILL.

In reply to an hon. MEMBER,
The LORD-ADVOCATE said, as this was a measure
which would require discussion, it was proposed to take it
on Thursday week, at a morning sitting. (Loud cries of
(" Oh, oh 1")

fEDINBURGH ASSESSMENTS BILL.
This bill passed through committee.
The Landed Property Improvement, &c. (Ireland) Bill
was read a second time.

The Combination of Parishes Dissolution (Scotland) Bill
went through committee.

The Markets (Ireland) Bill was read a second time, and
ordered to be referred to a select committee.
The house adjourned at half-past 1 o'clock.

[ADVERTISEMENT.]—Among the numerous extraor-
dinary cures without medicine effected by Du Barry's deli-
cious Health Restoring Revalenta Arabica Food, the
following deserve notice :—Cure No. 54,318—Mr. James
Chapman, of Clunbury, Shropshire, Dec. 22, 1856, of many
years sufferings of chronic rheumatism, and complication
of nervous diseases. Cure No. 3,906--Mr. J. Porter, of
Athol-street, Perth, May 2, 1848, of thirteen years cough,
indigestion, and general debility. Cure No. 24,814—The
Rev. Thomas Minster, cure of five years nervousness, with
spasms and daily vomitings: Cure No. 32,836—0 f the
Venerable Archdeacon Alex. Stuart, of Ross, of three years
excessive nervousness, with pains in his neck and left arm,
and general debility, which rendered his life very miserable.
Avoid Pills and 14edicines : they invariably aggravate and
perpetuate diseases ; their annoyance, disappointment,
and expense may be avoided by using Du Barry's Food
which, at a few pence per day, saves 5C times its cost in
9ther remedies, removing effectually, ck .thout purging,
constipation, indigestion (dyspepsia) nervous, .bilious and
liver complaints and all their consequences. Certificate
No. 36,418. We find it the safest remedy. Andrew Ure,
MD FR S Dr Harvey, Dr. Wurzer, Dr. Shorland, Dr.
Campell. Let invalids avoid the fearful dangers of spu-
rious and injuriou imitations offered under a variety of
false pretences. Nevill's imitations are prohibited by the
high Court of Chancery under a penalty of £5,000 against
Alfred Hr‘oper Nevill and his agents ; and the pretences
that Nevill has a patent for Arabica Food and that On
Barry's are connected with such patent are utterly fake.
No canister is genuine without the name Barry Du Barry
and Co., 77, Regent-street, in full, on theseal and wrapper.
Shopkeepers who attempt imposition in one article must
expect to be distrusted in all others. Packed in tins lib.
2s. 9d.; 21b. 4s. 6L ; 51b. lls. ; 121 b. 225. ; 241 b. 40s. The
121 b. and 241 b. canisters are cent carriage free on receipt
of Post-office order by Barry Du Barry and Co., 77, Re.
gent-street, London ; Fortnum Mason, and Co. ;
60, Gracechurch-street ; 4, Cheapside ; 63 and 150, Ox-
bard-street ; 330 and 451, Strand ;49 and 60, Bishopsgate-
,treet ; Batty, 16, Finsbury Pavement ; Phillips and Co.
tea-dealers; Potty, Wood, and Co.. King William-street
Citr Qt 127 fliv:h ,•ti All ..roeern