The Sun.
London, England, 1861-05-17 00:00:00

WO SUN, -LONDON, IRIDAY EVENING, MAY -17, 1861

Lords. (Hear, hear.) Had there been anything in the pro-
ceedings of the Lords to justify this condemnation? He
adhered to the opinions which last year he had expressed on
that point. Any attempt to disarrange the relationship
which existed between the three states of the realm required
the greatest care and thought. These states had formed
the mode of Government in England for centuries. The
hon. member for Birmingham would tell the house of the
baneful and blighting effect of an exclusive aristocracy, but
all history served to show that Government by means of a
single Chamber was always prone to act a tyrannical part.
(Cheers from the Conservatives.) Such a Chamber had
never been able to last long, because it broke through all
restraint. All forms, proceedings, and precedents were
swept away by the exciting passions and interests of the day.
In the language he had addressed to the house last year, he
had not spoken contemptuously of the Commons; he had
simply expressed his approval of the wholesome check fur .
nished by the other branch of the Legislature. The House
of Lords was an essential element in the Constitution, and
their authority was not likely to be denied. Destroy the
second chamber and there must result either an absolute
monarchy or a republic. The moment it was established
that a decree of the Commons was final, then a democratic
power in the most absolute sense would have then been esta •
blished. It was said that the practice of old times was that
the Commons had the whole and sole control of taxation ;
but historically that was not correct; for all that the Com-
mons in old times had maintained as their right was to tax
themselves. Constitutionally the Lords possessed a suspen-
sive power, and he had never claimed for them a higher
power. He had never expressed on any measure the opinion
that the Lords should be the justices of the Commons in
matters of finance, but he had claimed for the assembly the
right on great occasions, by interposing delay, of giving fur-
ther time for full deliberation. As regarded what happened
last year, the suspensive power of the House of Lords
was unquestionably well employed, and it was for the
House of Commons to acknowledge the benefit which had
accrued to the country from their having had an inde-
pendent Chamber, which did what everybody since had ac-
knowledged was perfectly right. He could not agree with
the argument of the right hon. member for Carlisle, which
simply amounted to an acknowledgment of a right, an ad-
mission that the right was properly exercised, and a state-
ment that he was prepared to take steps to prevent that
right ever again being constitutional. His statement simply
was that the conduct of the House of Lords was right, pro-
pm- and eonaitutional ; and from that he drew the conclu-
sion—ergo, he must prevent them ever acting again in a
similar manner. That was a conclusion which he himself
could not arrive at, nor could he admit that the resolutions
of late years established any proposition. Those resolutions
certainly embodied the principle that the veto of the House
of Lords was one not often to be used, but never in any
way attempted to d any the legality of the course taken last
year by the House of Lords. The present bill took away all
the power which the constitution and unvaried practice had
established in the House of Lords. If any doubt existed on
the subject, the statement of the First Minister of the
Crown would settle the question; and, on looking over the
speech of the noble lord, he found that he laid down the
principle that to take from the Lords the power of assent
would require an act of Parliament to which they would
have to be a party, or else resort to a revolutionary move-
ment, which would subvert the existing constitution. The
noble lord had on subsequent occasions also expressed a
strong and very decided opinion against interfering with
the undoubted constitutional authority of the House of
Lords. It was difficult, if not impossible, to recognise any
identity between the resolutions proposed by the noble lord
on a former occasion and the course now proposed. He
admitted that, as regarded the Chancellor of the Exche-
quer, and the noble lord the member for London, their con-
duct on this question had been honourable and out-
spoken; but the contest which they had waged had been
not a very glorious one, for any victory gained had been
only a victory over a colleague. It had been made matter
of complaint that no issue had been joined on the question
before the house, but after the statement made on a pre-
vious occasion by the noble lord at the head of the Govern-
ment, such a step appeared unnecessary. If the repeal of
the paper duty was the sole thing at issue, why not send up
a bill to the Lords simply embodying the repeal? (Hear.)
The fact was that the present proposal was, to a certain
extent, a very valiant one, but it might end in defeat, and
there then would be the humiliation that so much had

been said about it, and that appeared to be so much dreaded.
It was said, and he could not controvert the statement, that
the Commons were angry with the House of Lords because
last year they had shown more sense than themselves—
(hear)—but it might happen that the course now proposed,
instead of being a settlement of the question, might only
lead to the starting of a new question altogether. There
might be found in the House of Lords a spirit of wisdom
and resolution equal to the emergency they were forcing
upon them. It was possible that the Lords might contrive
some mode of accepting their finance and of rejecting their
affront. In what situation would the house then be placed ?
If they accepted the mode which the Lords might suggest,
they must be humiliated, but if they did not accept it, then
a dissolution might be the result. At that moment the
great Liberal party did not stand high—very high—in the
country, but the result might be a House of Commons as
unlike the present as possible. (Hoar.) lie advised his
&touts not LO follow the raoh advice of the hos, Istawn
the member for Carlisle. The right hon. baronet forgot
that the cry of " Up with the Commons" could only mean
in this case " up with a body that was divided against itself."
(Hear.) The name of the Chancellor of the Exchequer

would in such a contest be received in many districts with
acclamations. The name of the hon. member for Birming-
ham would be hailed by his friends; but the name of the
noble lord the member for Tiverton would never be heard

—it would be rejected, his followers would be dispersed,
and his opponents would be enthroned in power. (Hear.)
Mr. PULLER said that the impression which the speech
of the hon. and learned member for Stroud had left upon
his mind was, that there were three parties to this question
—the noble lord the member for Tiverton, the House of
Lords, and the country at large. Of those three the country
had, he thought, the most reason to complain. The aim of
the hon. and learned gentleman seemed to be to stir up the
Lords to reject this bill. (Hear, hear.) In his zeal, the hon.
and learned gentleman had claimed privileges for the Lords
which they had never claimed for themselves. He believed
that the wisest and ablest members of the House of Lords
would refuse to go along ith the hon. member in the pro-
positions which he had advanced. Lord Derby had admitted
that to the House of Commons belonged the originating and
even the regulating matters of finance. This has long been
acknowledged to be the right of the Commons. It had been
acknowledged by the I ords, first by sending back bills of
supply to this house to be presented to her Majesty at the
prorogation, instead of keeping them back to be presented
by their own messengers. He acquitted the Lords of any
intention of encroaching on the privileges of this house for
the sake of so doing, but in the result the effect had been
that these privileges had been encroached upon. The House
of Commons had taken its course on the financial informa-
tion which was never communicated to the House of Lords.
They had voted an income tax, which they considered suffl-
cient for the wants of the year, and that was agreed to by the
Lords. But when the Commons passed the bill for the repeal
of the paper duty, the Lords rejected it on pounds which
had already been raised in this house, and thus imposed on
the country taxation to the amount of a million and a half
more than had been authorised by the Commons. What then
became of the privilege of the Commons ? Why, the Crown
had received that amount of supply which this house never
granted. It was said that the bill which the Lords rejected was
not a wise or prudent measure, but that was not the ques-
tion. The question was not what was right to be done,
but which House of Parliament was to do it. But the
Commons had themselves to blame. The Lords would be
justified iu saying to them, if you considered these mea-
sures to be so intimately connected, why did you not send
them to us in one bill, that we might have considered
them together ? Then, if we thought that any change
ought to be made, we should send the bill back to you, and
you might consider whether you would adopt it in its muti-
lated form, or make ether aseangemer is for the finances of
the year. As it was, they had accepted the Income•tax—
indeed they could do nothing else—but they rejected the
Paper duty. Now, the question was, whether the Com-
mons were to place the Lords in that unfair position again,
or adopt the suggestion of the chairman of the Committee
of Precedents and approved of by the leader of the Oppo-
sition (Mr. Disraeli), which, so far from insulting the
House of Lords, or trenching on their privileges, was the
fairest course towards the Lords themselves. It was cer-
tainly incumbent on the Commons to take such measures
as would secure that the Budget should Lot b 3 taxed by
the House of Lords without the consent of the House.
Mr. NEWDEGATE said he was much impressed with
the magnitude of the question, and was very anxious that
the House should see the extent of the privilege they were
claiming, which was that this house might be at liberty
to commit such follies as they pleased, but must not be
corrected by the House of Lords. No member was less
willing than he was to sac] ifice the privileges of that
House, but he said that, to give taxes the force
of law, it was essential to have the real consent
of both houses, and not to leave merely a form of consent
which would be a farce. The resolutions recommending
the adoption of this course were distinctly rejected by the
committee at the suggestion of Sir James Graham, who
now said he only made that proposal for the sake of
unanimity. How strong then must have been the
difference of opinion in that committee. There was nothing
in the resolutions to sanction the course taken.
The first resolution would never have been carried had it
Rot been accompanied by the others, but it was now pro-
posed to act on the first only ; paying no attentior. to the
others which recognise the exceptional power of the Lords.
The effect of the proceeding they were now about to adept
would be not only to fetter the discretion of the House of
Lords, but would grievously contract the action of this
House. Tho hon. member for Birmingham had said this
was his Budget, but chad the conduct of that hon. member
been such with respect to either House of Parliament as to
entitle him to the confidence of the House of Commorts.
His expressions with respect to the House at Lords were
fullyin keeping with the plan now proposed for depriving
that House of its rights and privileges. The repeal of the
paper duty would be made at the instigation of an organi-
sation of which the hon. member for 13irmin,gham was one
of the heads, and for the benefit of its leaders. As an in-
depe4deut member he warned the Rouse against the