The Sun.
London, England, 1861-05-31 00:00:00

me take on the immediate issue in question, and on those
subjects with which it is now inevita'o-ty ana inextricably
associated. After the financial. statement of the Minister
which was the origin of these protracted debates, several
gentlemen in this honse whose opinions deserve respect en-
tertained some suspicions as to the solidity of the surplus
on which tile measures of the Government were founded. I
am yet at a loss to understand that the House of Commons
was exercising any function foreign to its highest duties
when on such a subject theydid not hesit ate to express their
suspicions, or to submit the statement of tne Minister to the
most severe scrutiny. I apprehend they were only perform-
ing their duty in so doing, and that they pursued the
course which their predecessors had always followed. I
take it that the principle which should guide the
house upon such a question as the existence or non-exist-
ence of a surplus is one which may be accurately defined.
Ii there be among hon. members a general conviction that
the Government have been guilty ofsuch financial and poli-
tical negligence as not to have duly provided for the public
service and the possible exigencies of the State, I apprehend
that the house has but one course to follow and one duty to
fulfil. It will be due to the Government and to the charac-
ter of the house, under such circumstances, that they
should call on the house to declare, in a manner which can-
not be mistaken, their want of confidence in the Ministers,
who, after such negligence, are clearly incompetent to dis-
charge the great duties and to bear the heavy responsibility
of government. (Cheers.) But if, on the contrary, that be
not the case, I do not understand bow, as practical men, we
can do otherwise than accept the statements of the Minister
and act as those statements justify us in doing. (Hear,
hear.) On the first night of the debate, on the question of
the adjournment, I said that for my own part I had not
made up my mind on the question, and that I waited for
the explanations of the Ministers upon the question of sur-
plus. I thought that I had on that occasion taken a usual
course, and I know that I was influenced only by the desire
of fair dealing. I was therefore surprised that the noble
lord the First Minister should have challenged the propriety
of my conduct. The criticism that was offered on the ele-
ments which form the surplus of the Chancellor of the
Exchequer were of a grave character, and requirel con-
sideration and the explanation of the Minister. These
points were ably stated to the house, and we had the ad-
vantage of obtaining the answer of the Government upon
the main questions which were raised in that discussion.
On the one hand, the Chancellor of the Exchequer stated
in regard to the money due from China that ho had con-
templated all the objections which had been urged against
his estimates, and that he had no doubt that the money on
which he counted would reach him at the proper time. The
noble lord at the head of the Government, on the other
hand, stated that the objections to the Budget, founded on
political considerations, had been well weighed by the Cabi-
net, and that he saw no reason to believe that an unexpected
event in an important part of the globe would lead to in-
creased expenditure. Having received these assurances,
and not being prepared to challenge the Government upon
those great matters, and to ask the house to decide whe-
ther or not they could repose confidence in her Majesty's
Ministers, I felt it to be my duty to accept the surplus of
the Government as a natural surplus, and to hold that the
question at issue was how should it be appropriated. There
is another point upon which I wish to make one or two ob-
servations. The charges which have been made against us
of wasting the public time in considering whether the
financial statement of the Chancellor of the Exchequer
was or was not justified are charges which cannot for a
moment be sustained ; I do not believe that any Minister
would in his cooler moments, and after due reflection, seri-
ously contend that the institution of a scrutiny into the
existence or absence of a surplus is not a legitimate duty of
the House of Commons. We have also been charged with
wasting time by the discussions which have takea place in
the cou se of these protracted debates, as to the form of the
bill in which the policy of the Government is embodied.
That also is a charge which, as it appears to me, is entirely
devoid of justice. It cannot be denied that the procedure
adopted by the Government with regard to th ir financial
measures this year is of a novel character. (Hear, hear.)
When the resolutions which were to be moved in Committee
of Ways and Means were placed upon the table every one
perceived at once that their form was unusual, and every
one necessarily connected that change of form with the
grave difference between the two houses which occurred
last year. Surly that was a combination of circumstances
which justified on the part of the house inquiry and con-
sideration—inquiry into the reasons which induced the
Government to adopt this foi m, and consideration whether
it was a constitutional or legitimate form. I cannot con-
ceive any subject with respect to which discussion and
deliberation in this house could be more legitimate or more
necessary. (Hear, hear.) I do not want to introduce any
controversy on that subject on the present occasion, but at
the same time, I do not want to conceal my opinion upon
it. I believe that by our precedents upon our Journals
her Majesty's Government were fully justified in putting
their measures in the form which they have selected.
(Hear, hear.) Igo further than that—l believe that there
might be occasions upon which it would be highly conve-
nient that the policy of the Government should be em-
bodied in a single measure, and it is still my opinion that
had the financial measures of last year been brought before
the house in that form they would never have passed.
(Hear, hear.) But although the course pursued by the
Minister in this respect may be justified by precedent, and
though it may, under certain circumstances, be even recom-
mended by convenience, at the same time, in my opinion, its
adoption and application this year is unwise—(hear, hear)
—unnecessary—(hear)—and impolitic, and that instead
of leading to conciliation it will tend to an opposite
result. (Cheers.) In the first place, what is there to con -
ciliate ? There is no quarrel between the two houses.
I should look upon such a quarrel as a great misfortune,
and although I am, I hope, as anxious to maintain the pri-
vileges of this house as any gentleman in it, I should be
prepared to make any concession consistent with our rights
and dignity in order to prevent the occurrence of anything
so unfortunate as a misunderstanding between the two
Houses of Parliament. But I do not understand that there
has been any such misunderstanding. I conclude from all
that I have observed and all that I have read that the con-
duct of the House of Lords with respect to the measure for
the repeal of the paper duty last year was justified by
every legal and Parliamentary authority. Certainly, if
there are any persons who are of a contrary opinion it can-
not be her Majesty's Ministers. The speech of the noble
lord at the head of the Government. the resolutions adopted
by this house in consonance with that speech, would be
strong indications of that fact, but when we remember that
her Majesty's Ministers were last year obliged by the force
of circumstances to introduce a sec ,rid Budget, and that the
Chancellor of the S achcquer availed himself of the Excise
upon Paper as part of his Ways and Means, it is quite clear
that it is not her Majesty's Ministers who can impugn the
right of the House of Lords as exercised last year. (He ir.)
How far it was justifie I in policy is not a question which I
wish to introduce into this discussion. This house and the
Country are, I believe, agreed upon that point. Well, then,
what is there to conciliate ? If there has been no misun-
derstanding., if there has been no collision, if the House of
Lords has only done that which the law and usage of Par-
liament justified, and which her Majesty's Ministers have
entirely sanctioned by their speeches, by their resolutions,
and even by their financial measures, why should we this
year unnecessarily make a change in the form of our pro-
ceedings, the only apparent result of which can be to pro-
duce a collision and to render conciliation impossible ?
(Cheers.) I will not proceed at length into this controversy,
because I think that upon the present occasion it is entirely
unnecessary to do so, and I only touched upon it because I
think that when so grave and delicate a question is brought
before the house and debates arise upon it—debates which
have been maintained on both sides, and with great learning
and ability—the country ought not to be told and led to be_
lieve that while we have been endeavouring to arrive at
prudent and wise decisions of policy we have been wasting
the public time. (Hear, hear.) It is of the very greatest
importance, even for the House of Commons with all its
power, to be upon terms of good and cordial understanding
with the other House of Parliament. We live in an age of very
rapid transition. The character of this house has been greatly
ouoolfLs
or
changed within the memory of man. The power of this
within often
houseno has been very greatly increased ; the power of the
Theuelle of
s Led has, as e
havewe ar
ftetnhe lremasitnzdoedy,ears
or
diminished.more
lost a great deal of power, but the house •
t will make a great
mistake if they fail to observe that
gained something. The Lords, indeed, can
Lords have also
no longer exer-
cise the power which the ancient barons ell
there was in this country but one kind of proe exercised, becausedcathuse
were almost the sole possessors of it. The Ifoursye, ofan Lordsey
cannot, indeed, exercise that power which was exercised by
UT?, great nobles who invented the Constitution of 1688 and
es tablished an oligarchy in this country, No doubt all that
is changed ; but the House of Lords derive a great and
gefowing influence from the conviction in the national mind
tl tat the existence of a body which may intervene between
flee popular branch of the Legislature and absolute legisla-
t ion is a great security for public liberty and far temperate
government. (Cheers.) The people of this country feel that
the existence of a body of that kind is a great blessing, and,
the experience of Europe having proved that such a body
cannot be artificially created, they consider it a great good
fortune to England that such an intermediate body should
have gradually ri>en up, supported by property, tradition,
and experience, and ready to act with the critical faculty
which is necessary when precipitate legislation is attempted,
and at least to obtain time, so that the ultimate decision of
all questions of importance shall be in accordance with the
matured opinion of an enlightened people. This is a great
influence, and if the House of Lords continues to be influ-
enced by the wise and temperate feelings which have go •
vented its conduct of late years, it is an influence that will
increase ; and I believe that our discussions upon the rela-
tions between ourselves and the House of Lords with re-
ference to this very legislation has assisted tho house and
the country to arrive at sound opinions upon the subject.
Who, then, has a right to say that we have been wasting the
public time when we have been discussing questions involv-
ing considerations and consequences of so important a cha-
racter? Therefore, with respect to both the topics upon
which we have of late been so frequently taunted by the
House of Lords, I hold that the House of Commons is free
from blame. We have been told that we have denied the
surplus, and yet proposed a remission of taxation. I deny
that they can apply to myself, or to any gentleman who sits
upon this bench, Nothing of the kind has occurred,