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

course they were pursuing with respect to the system of
tacking bills. (Hear, hear.) The honourable member
referred to some of the speeches of tb.e honourable member
for Birmingham in which he expressed very strong
opinions respecting the constitution of the House of Lords
and the House of Commons, and concluded by saying that
when the power of the Crown was vested in a majority of
the House of Commons, and when that majority was
governed by an organisation outside Parliament, there was
grave danger to the liberty and independence of the repre-
sentatives of the people.
Mr. MELLOR contended against the description given
by the hon. member for Stroud (Mr. Horsman), that the
House of Lords was either a court of review, or that it
had any suspensive right with respect to the finance mea-
sures of the House of Commons. He also combated the
argument of Mr. Horsman, that the resolutions agreed
to by the House last Session were to be interpreted by
the right of the noble lord at the head of the Govern-
ment, rather than by the clear and intelligible mean-
ing which was conveyed upon the face of them. After
the resolutions of last year had been passed, the
right hon. gentleman the member for Buckinghamshire
expressed his approval of the third one in particular, which
claimed a right of control for the House of Commons over
financial matters, and hoped it would be adopted by the
house. He submitted that the Government were right in
embodying their financial scheme in one bill. (Hear, hear.)
Mr. MALINS did not think there was any necessity for
the House of Commons to approach the House of Lords in
anything like a penitential mood. No doubt the right of
gaanting aid and supplies to the Crown was in the House
of Commons ; but now it was avowed by the Chancellor of the
Exchequer that any Constitution which oshould enable the
Lords to have any voice on the subject was a Constitution
which could not too speedily receive a stab. If that were true,
then the sooner the Commons ceased to send money bills to
the Lords the better. They knew not how long the present
Constitution of the Commons might be preserved; and if that
house should happen to become of a very democratic cha-
' ratter, and direct taxation alone was to prevail, what would
be the state of the kingdom if the Lords were then to have no
voice. (Hear, hear.) He admitted that this was not a tack-
ing bill in the common sense of the word, but then it intro-
duced clauses upon which the Lords had no power to vote.
In the-year 1830 an act was passed limited solely to the
rereal of the leather duties, and that was framed in order to
give the House of Lords the full power that the Constitution
gave them of giving a direct negative. In 1845, when the
glass duty was repealed, a bill of supply was also granted,
giving certain duties on glass, and, in fact, during the last
fifty years there had existed a practice of embodying all re-
peals of duties in separate bills. In the last year, when the
question of the repeal of the paper duty came forward, it
came forward is a way which gave the House of Lords the
power of exercising their undeniable privilege. The noble
lord at the head of the Government had always recognised
the right ofthe House of Lords to give expression to their
views, even on the subject of a money bill, and he had, in
the resolutions which he had proposed, thoroughly admit-
ted the power of rejection of the House of Lords. If, then,
the House of Lords last year only exercised their constitu-
tional right, why should any attempt be made to deprive
them of the opportunity of doing the same this year. He
considered the repeal of the paper duty an unwise measure;
but in the vote oa the question he thought that the reten •
tion of the paper duty mu=t be an embarrassment to any
Government; and he could only say, with regard to the
present bill, that the second reading would be a matter of
course ; but he biped that hereafter the Government would
agree to divide the bill. (Hear, hear.)
Mr. WHALLEY supported the second reading of the
bill.

Sir S. NORTHCOTE said that if he did not touch upon
the financial questions involved in the Budget, it was not
because he thought the subject exhausted, but because he
thought the desire of the house was to confine itself to the
form of the bill before them. He was quite prepared
so far as he was concerned, that he did not intend to dis-
pute the right or wisdom of the house to take the course
proposal by combining in one bill its financial measures.
(Hear, hear.) He did not agree with those who spoke of
the danger of a collision with the other house on this sub-
ject. He no more believed in that danger than
Caleb Balderstone did in the reality of the thunder-
storm which he pretended had occurred. He reminded the
house that they were about to vote annually £20,000,000
of their taxes. The right hon. bart., the member for Car-
lisle, said that formerly the practice was to include such
rest lutionr as those now before the house in one bill. That

might be true. But what he wished to speak on at present
was the question of voting from year to year a large por-
tion of the taxation of the country. That was an important
change. The House of Lords would have the same right
to deal with the question, whether it was sent up to them
in one bill or in one or two bills rolled up together. (Hear.)
The real question was, that they were making a large
amount of their taxation dependent on the annual vote of
that hcuse. He knew not how far the commercial and
financial policy of the Government was identical with the
views of the hon. member for Birmingham. He would,
however, remind them thatabout a year and a-half ago the
hon. member for Birmingham proposed to sweep away all
the taxes they no w proposed to vote, and to substitute a tax
on realised property, including trade. (Hear, hear.)
Mr. lortuurr—i beg to explain. I assure the hon.
member that I never said anything of tho kind; and I
should never assent to a proposition so utjust.
Sir S. NORTHCOTE was very glad to be corrected.
He had no desire to misrepresent the hon. gentleman. At
all events, it was the hon. gentleman's intention to lay a
single tax on realised property—a tax in some way distin-
guishett from the income-tax—which he had condemned in
as strong terms as any member of this house. Mr. Bright
also proposed to substitute for the tea and sugar duties, and
for the present income-tax, a tax of Bs. on every £lOO of
property. He (Sir S. Northcote) wished to know whether
that was a policy which gentlemen of the Whig party were
willing to adopt. If so, he could understand their taking
this course, but if they were not prepared to go so far, he
would advise them to pause, and consider what would be
the effect of making all these taxes equal. The Chancellor
of the Exchequer talked as if he were standing in the old
paths, and they were the rash innovators. He said that this
was a measure in accordance with the policy of Sir Robert
Peel, and ~f his own (Mr. Gladstone's) budget of 1853. In
both there were remissions of duty, that was the one point
of resemblance, but Sir R. Peel, and also Mr. Gladstone,
in 18.53, laid the taxation down for a period of years,
whereas in the present budget provision was not made even
for a second year. In two years' time they would still
be in the position that they must renew the whole of the
existing taxation, even without any payment of debt, and
if they wished to pay off any part of their debt new taxes
must be imposed. There was a very high expenditure to
be met by taxation, and, of course, it ought to be by that
mode of taiation which was the least oppressive and the
fairest. Would any one contend that the present income-
tax answered those conditions ? (Hear, hear.) The impo-
sition of the income-tax year by year would have the effect
of constantly provoking class feelings, and the question
would arise every year with augmented bitterness, of whe-
ther the income-tax was to be 9d. or 10d., &c.
Mr. J. LOCKE complained of the conduct of the Opposi-
tion, which, after so many nights' debate, had now an-
nounced, by the hon. baronet, that they really did not care
a straw whether one bill or three bills were sent up to the
House of Lords. So far as the paper duty was concerned,
the whole country was in favour of its repeal. (Cries of
"No, no.") It was all very well for hon. gentlemen to cry
SC, no," but he contended that what he said wascorrect.
Mr. W. DUNC OM BE said the question before the house
might be divided into two parts—the financial and the con-
stitutional. The country, in his opinion, had a right to
feel grievously disappointed at the course the Chancellor
of the Exchequer had pursued. Instead of repealing the
paper duty, he ought to have proposed a further
reduction in the income-tax, and a diminution of the tea
duty, a proposition which would have met with the general
concurrence of the house.

Lord PALMERSTON.—An old friend of mine used to
say when a question was put to him, " I should like to hear
it argued." A very prudent maxim that was, and undoubt-
edly the course of this debate shows the advantage of a full
discussion. (Hear.) We began these debates with great
doubts expressed whether there was any surplus at all. The
statement of my right hon. friend was disputed, his results
denied, and the whole foundation of his scheme was said to
be fallacious. After a certain amount of discussion it was
generally admitted that there was a surplus. (Oh 1 and
hear.) That admission was made not merely in words but
by a motion, because those who began by disputing the
existence of a surplus endesi by proposing a greater reduc-
tion of taxation, which would have absorbed a portion of
that surplus. (Hear.) That was a step in the progress.
(Hear.) Then arose the question as between tea and paper,
and great objection was raised, which was largely and gene-
rally expressed, to the repeal of the paper duty ; but discus..
sion had its effect, and now there is no dispute as to whe-
ther the paper duty should or should not be repealed. (Hear.)
There was step the second very satisfactorily established.
(Hear, hear.) 'I hen arose the graver question—the question
between the two Houses of Parliament. Serious objections
were urged to the method proposed by my right hon. friend

of putting all his financial arrangements into one bill,
which was said to b an outrage on the House of Lords.

That was a subject for discussion during a great many
hours, but fortunately we have this very evening heard, on
very competent authority, thht that is a matter of no im-
portance. The hon. baronet the member for Stamford told
us that the result of the discussion is that it is perfectly im-
materir.:l whether the financial propositions go up to the
other house in one, two, three, or four bills—he does not

care sixpence how it's settled. (Laughter.) Here we have
the surplus established, an entire acquiescence in the selec-
tion of the Paper Duty, and in the method and arrange••

went of the matters to be sent up t ) the other house. (Hear,
hear.) And then when—good, simple-minded people—we
were looking upon the NI hole matter as disposed of, up
starts another question, entirely unconnected with any of
the former questions,—whether taxes shall be voted
annually, or made permanent. That is a new subject,
and I dare say that when you, Sir, put the question, we
shall have a motion for adjournment in order that it may
be fully discussed. (1.3 laugh.) I can only recommend
honourable members to turn their minds to it in the

course of the Whitsuntide holydays, so that they may be
fully prepared to enter into a, formal discussion of it.
(Laughter.) Being so far agreed, I was in hopes that the