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

THE PRINCESS ALICE ANNUITY BILL.

Mr. Justice Wiles and Mr. Justice Keating appeared
at the bar of the house and brought up a message from the
House of Lords stating that their lordships had agreed to
the Bill for an annuity to her Royal Highness the Princess
Alice.

CUSTOMS AND INLAND REVENUE BILL.
•Sir W. HEATHCOTE, whose remarks had been inter-
rupted by the arrival of the judges, resumed his address,
and proceeded to contend that there was nothing in the
course adopted in the preparation of this bill which would
bring them within the precedents to be used against the
measure. So far as ho was concerned, he disclaimed any
opposition on his part to the budget as a whole. Ile bad
voted against it, bnt the house having decided by a majority
to adopt it, he had only to consider the mode in which the
proposals were to be submitted to Parliament, and upon
this point he had no hesitation in saying that the plan
adopted involved no violation of the piincip!es of the other
house. (Hear, hear.)

General PEEL said that a great part of the arguments
used in the course of the debate had gone oR the supposi-
tion that the privileges of the House of Lords were about
bbe invaded. In his opinion, however, the privileges of
the House of Commons were far more in danger than those
of the other house ; but that danger was from attacks from
within, rather than from without. He thought the finan-
cial statement ought to be a fair, clear, and complete account
between the two Governments. lie was anxious to learn
what was the state of the accounts between the Indian and
British Governments on account of the China war. The
hon. gallant member also pointed out a discrepancy in the
army votes, which would leave an excess of expenditure
over the amount voted of £200,000, and asked explanations
relative to the repayment of £44,000 made to the Indian
Government.

The CHANCEL LOB, of the EXCHEQUER said he had
listened with some satisfaction to some of the statements of
the right hon. gentleman, and he was glad to heat the ad-
mission that a surplus must be prospective, and must be as-
sumed for the guidance of the proceedings of the house. His
right hon. friend likewise assented to the principle which it
was his (the Chancellor of the Exchequer's) duty to lay
down, and which, though it had been regarded as a novelty
by some hon gentlemen, was a financial truism nevertheless,
that it was the duty of the Chancellor of the Exchequer to
make provision for the charges coming due on the year and
no more—and he likewise observed that his right hon. friend
did not dispute the application of the eurplue, as that had
been settled by a vote of the holm, His right hon. friend
then asked hira,some questions with respect to the military
charge, and he would presently notice this in detail—he said,
and he (the Chancellor of the Exchequer) agreed with him,
that it Was an evil that we should have depending from year I
to year unclosed accounts involving large sums of money be- I
tween the Indian Government and this country; but the
right hon. gentleman knew well that the reformation of a
system of that kind could not be effected in a day, or even
in a year. All he had to observe to the right hon. gentleman
in mitigation of his apprehensions on this subject was that
he had not stated that all those sums he had referred to
were in the nature of unsettled claims ; and he had ven-
tured tontate else that so far att he believed there never was
a tine, or rarely a time, when the state of accounts was
more favourable to the British as compared with the In-
dian Government than at this moment. (Hear, hear.) He
did not think that any payment had been made to the
Indian Government since last April, or any payment under
the head of vote of credit for China. His impression, there-
fore, was that the payment to the Indian Government stood
as it was—that was between £1,000,000 and £1 200 000
His, right hon. friend asked him further whethertlni:iapdayn:
mreet had been made on account of the claims of the
Cl overnraent previous to the late China war. There was a
I.aeraent of about £140,000, speaking in round numbers,
which was a claim provided for under the vote of credit in
July last. His right hon. friend also challenged him as to
whether there was any provision made forexcess on the army
votes, as he said there would be a large increase on certain
votes. He (the Chancellor of the Exchequer) must leave
that to be explained by tb.ewepresentative of the War De-
partment in that house; but he might make this remark,
that his right hon. friend wail fall of apprehension that the
provision for the public expenditure was very insufficient
and would make an inroad on the surplus ; he, with 280
other gentlemen, voted for taking £285,000
more than the
Government did from that surplus. (Hear.) That was a
prOWfre34l which required some explanation on the part of
his right hen . friend. (Hui.) He (the Chancellor of the
Exchequer) did nob propose: to enter at the present moment
into these l rsonal matters that had occurred in the course
of eneelebele. (Hear.) Some of them related to himself,
which he thought it host to pass by; but there were others
of dawn, 1 raCllll3 the impeachment of the right hon. gentle-
man Ile member for Bucks as to what he had stated about
pubti e e.e.-penditure, and his former declarations respecting
the t ,ea and, sugar duties, he placed in a different category.
He thought these were fair matters for parliamentary at tack
and controversy, and it was only his respect for the house
which prevented him from entering at the present time into
thee eie matters. He would, however, state his conviction that
he could perfectly prove to the house, from recorded facts
are' I declarations, that what he stated in 1857 with respect to
tai- a tea, and sugar duties was in entire consistency with
hat ho had - said every year since, and now in the present
y ear, (Ifear.) lie thought it his duty, however, to revert to
when had been called the constitutional question in this de-
bate„ as he could got but feel that some special respozzsibi-

lity attached to him as finance minister for the plan of th
Government now before the house, and the particular
mode adopted in presenting it. They must recollect hoer
the house stood in point of argument and in ; eint of
order. His respected colleague the member for the
University having voted with hon. gentlemen opposite
on the subject of the financial plan, had to-night stated that
in his opinion the mode of presenting the plan of finance as
a single measure was sound and constitutional. (Hear,
hear.) He had likewise authoritatively informed them, not
only in his own name, but in that of their right hon. friend
the member for Cambridge, whose soundness of judgment
and calm mind must carry with them the greatest weight,
as he was last year chairman of the committee which inves-
tigated this subject, and applied himself with the greatest
diligence° the inquiry. (Hear, hear.) Lastly he (the Chan,
cellor of the Exchequer) felt bound to say that in the form
of the proceeding which they had chosen they were acting
on the direct indication and under the authority of the right
hon. gentleman himself the member for Bucks. He spoke
now of matter of history ; and the Government were dis-
tinctly entitled entitled to and would claim the vote of the
right hon. gentleman. (Hear.) But, nevertheless, it might
be well to take more particular notice of the propositions
which were so well laid down by the hon. and learned gen-
tleman the member for Sligo; and he must say he could
not more conscientiously pay the hon. and learned gentle-
man a compliment, considering the barrenness of his mate-
rials, and how cleverly he handled his' scanty materials.
The house would remember how when the Master of Ra-
venswood was in distress,Caleb Balderstone, having no pro-
visiene of any kind in the house, nevertheless undertook to
furnish a first-rate banquet; and he (the Chancellor of the
Exchequer) did not think that Caleb Balderstone, either in
hearty good-will or success, surpassed the operations of the
hon, and learned gentleman. (Hear, hear, and laughter.)
Now, he (the Chancellor of the Exchequer) conceded to the
hon. and learned gentleman one of his propositions, which
was this,—that there never was an instance on record of a
financial bill rejected by the Lords, and being afterwards
sent up to them and passed in a bill of supply. (Hear,
hear,) He made that concession freely and without re-
serve, and he expected from the hon. and learned gentle-
man a reciprocal concession that not only there could not
be by any possibility such a case upon record, because
there never was a case of rejection by the Lords
of a financial measure resembling the one before the house
for the repeal of the paper duties. In the early history of
this country " tackfug" was the constant practice, but
that was when the Hoiese of Commons was weak and ill-
established, and they made use of tacking as an ingenious
and legitimate weapon of se, f-defence, and it might be said
that they still traced a faint relic of that state of things in
the rule that prevailed, that when supply was demanded
for her Majesty, or when it was proposed to go into com-
mittee of ways and means, any subjoct might legitimately
be raised by any member of the house. The question was
whether to join together proposals essentially homogeneous
could be confounded with that which was essentiaitte dis
tinguished from it by proposals which had no naiVal
cohesion. (Hear, hear.) He would now look at the can's
quoted by the hon. and learned gentleman. First, he
quoted the case of 1676, prior to the Revolution, the effect
of which was to decide against a combination of a grant of
money with an appropriation act. He (the Chancellor of
the Exchequer) held in his hand a list of 18 acts of Parlia-
ment, every one of which combined grants of money with
appropriation of supply. One of these acts was the 10th of
Anne, cap. 26, which commenced with granting augmen-
tations of duties ; then imposed new duties, and then made
various rules for the regulation of trade, and ended
with appropriating the whole of the money granted
in that session. (Hear, hear.) The hon. and learned
gentleman then dwelt largely on a case which he had not
well examined—he meant the case of 1807, and he founded
upon it another general principle, that a taxing bill could
not be combined with a grant of Exchequer bills. The hon.
and learned gentleman was in that case in the most com-
plete contradiction with the established practice of Parlia-
ment. The act of Geo. I. was one act for example to the
contrary, in which a grant of money and a grant of taxes
were combined with full authority to levy Exchequer bills.
Lord Grenville having been invested with the office of
checking the Treasury by the Exchequer, happened to be-
come head of the Board of Treasury ; great doubt arose
whether he or any other person authorised by him could
sign Exchequer bills which were issued by the authority of
the Treasury' but not from the Exchequer. Well, that was
evidently a question of constitutional law, but as distinct
from a financial question as if it had been the trial of a',man
in court of justice for forging Exchequer bills. That was
the interpretation of the case of 1807. Then the bon. and
learned gentleman endeavoured to establish a thied
ciple, that in an act of supply the grant and the rep 'al of
taxes could not be combined. But the hon. and learned
gentleman was followed on his own side of the house by
the hon.[member for Gloucestershire, who said he had ex-
amined the statutes for the first 20 years of this century,
and though he (the Chancellor of the Exchequer) did not
know why he had so restricted his inquiry, he nevertheless
told the house teat he had found 18 or 20 cases in which
taxes were granted and repealed in the same acts. No doubt
there were many more such cases, and if the hon. and
learned gentleman wished for particular cases they were
easily found. (Hear, hear.) In fact, even more than
was done by the bill before the house in the way of com-
bination was done by precedent. Thus, in 1695 there was
a repeal of certain duties, and by the same act others were
granted. In 1677 there was a grant of duties on servants
and on glass ; and by that same act there was a repeal
of another class of duties on glass, and a repeal also
of duties on certain persons and bodies corporate. In 1798
Mr. Pitt repealed the assessed taxes, and imposed an in-
come tax, and both were incorporated in the same act ; and
in 1807 there was the repeal by the same act of the duty on
beer and ale in Ireland, and a grant of other duties. Ex-
amples of combination might be multiplied almost indefi-
nitely. He would take two cases separated by a period of
100 years to show the extent over which that power of com-
bination ranged, and he thought there was great force in
the argument of the right hon, gentleman the member for
the University that no precedents could be stronger than
those drawn from the reign of Anne, when the controversy
arising out of the Irish forfeited estates had raged so long
between the houses, and the Lords had to adopt a standing
order for the repression of the practice of tacking. There
was a bill of supply, the 7th of Anne, cap. 8, which con-
tained these provisions. It began by continuing certain
duties on wine, tobacco, and other articles, and then went
on to repeal the duties on the export of copper and the ex-
port of brass wire. It then proceeded to authorise the issue
of Exchequer bills, and it authorised £612,000 to be so
issued. It next went on to deal with the funded debt, and
authorised a loan of £645,000 to be contracted ; after which
it proceeded in a great number of clauses to make a variety
of other provisions, and it ended with appropriating all the
money voted in that session of Parliament. There was in
fact no form of practice in any manner material to the
revenue or the contraction of debt that was not comprised
within the limits of that act of Parliament, which was
passed when the minds of men were still warm with the re-
membrance of the controversy which had prevailed between
the two houses on the subject of tacking, and their respec-
tive jurisdictions in matters of finance. (Hear, bear.)
Well, there was another case, and it was the only case
with which he need trouble the house, and it was that to
which reference was made by his right hon. friend the mem-
ber for Carlisle, because it was material` that the house
should understand they were not going, as was said by one
hon. member, to the extreme of their powers. They were
stopping fairly within the precedents of former times, and
the precedents of the good times of the ci nstitution. In
1808 an act was passed beginning with granting duties on
malt, sugar, tobacco, snuff; pensions, and offices ; it went on
to repeal certain other duties on offices and pensions, and
then it re-granted for the year duties which it had previously
repealed. Therefore it first of all combined grants, repeal,
and granting anew, And that was not all it combined. It
combined duties in different departments of state; it com-
bined sugar, which was a great duty of customs, with malt
and tobacco, which were great duties of excise, tobacco'
being then an excise duty ; and it combined indirect taxa-
tion through the customs with indirect taxation through
the excise, with direct taxation in the taxes that it granted ,
on pensions and offices. So that there at any rate was posi-
tively eviey essential point included in the combination that
was now presented, and they had already seen from prior
instances that other points might likewise have been in-
cluded in entire consistency with precedent. But the right
hon. gentleman proceeded to say it would have been a seri-
ous matter—not to have been desired—to have laid down
any precedent in this case which might hereafter have
seemed to wear the character of innovation. At the same
time,while I think the proof is complete and absolute—
and do not think there is a single
case mentioned by the
hon.-and learned
gentleman which amounts t ) more than
this, which no one disputes, that this course of combination
has been variouslof the time—at tly
iePusar,rsued, according to the circumstances
rec edent, we must no
time,e while we speak so much of
'n any degree flinch from consider-
ing what is the principle involved in the measure, because
precedent is idle and unimportant unless there be a rational
object in view. Now, in the first place,ber for Bucks I say that the
right hon. gentleman opposite, the member
was irrefragibly sound when he stated 'hat the method of'
presenting these propositions to the House of Commons in
one and the same form, and bringing them at one and the
same time under view, is distinctly for the advantage of
the House of Commons. It is impossible to conceive a
closer tie than that which unites these various items. They
are the constituent members of one account, some standing
on ono side of the account and others standing on the other.
And I say, all the advantage to the Souse of Commons is
shown fit)t, by the fact that last year it was found neces-
sary to combine in one motion, I mean in the motion of the
hon. member for Somersetshire, things that were separate
in the motion of £he Government ; and secondly,
that this
year, on the contrary, it was open to hon. members to wake
their choice from the series of resolutions that were sub-
mittedae to them, and to s
at
which the
select for themselves--a privilege
to which they were entitled—to select for themselves the'
point
Y chose to make their attack. It is only
right that an opposition should have that advantage, and I
believe that the mode pursued by the Government is the
best mode of affording it, as the right hon. gentleman the
member for Bucks most properly urged la.,t year that it
would be. But undoubtedly there is more in the case than
this. lam not about to enter into a discussion
on tine na-
ture of the proceedings taken by the Ilosuse of Lords last

year. I have heardmembers on the other aide of the house
express their gratitude to the House of Lords for the course
they adopted last year and really I must say that in this bad
and imperfect world of; ours, gratitude, disinterested gra-
titude, is a sentiment which is at once so ennobling and so
rare that I should be exceedingly loath to interfere with an
ymbuue
th .
the I 4 excuseuti
cs u
of
expression of it, or endeavour to check an effusion which
wnoetotuhgehptritviomyself the Hoonus that
Commons. The whole question, I think, is really this—it
, irises out of the resolution passed last year on the mo-
. tion of my noble friend at the head of the Government,
:ergeesspenicterseol
ground, and on other grounds, for referring to the conduct
of the House of Lords. I will do nothing except discuss,
" That the right of granting aids and supplies is in the
. Commons alone, as an essential part of the constitution."
It is not only inherent in them, but it inheres in them
in such a manner that they cannot part with it.
Then the resolution goes on to say—" And the
limitation of all such grants as to manner, matter, measure
and time is only in them." Now let us pay due attention to
the words "as to time." - Public convenience, considera-
tions of expediency connected with trade and commerce,
have led to the practice of permanent acts, and the doctrine
laid down is this, that when once the house has committed
itself by passing a permanent act it has entirely foregone
and surrendered its power of limitation which it unani-
mously asserted last year—its power of limitation of aids
and supplies to the crown in respect of time. We are told
that it was then made a grant for ever; but it has alienated
the privilege which by the prior part of that resolution we
declared to inhere in us as an essential part of our consti-
tution. If that be so it is quite clear that the House of
Commons stands seriously maimed, and the question arises
whether it will not be necessary for the House of Commons
to resume those powers, which they have declared belong
to them, to resume them, of course, in a regular constitu-
tional manner—to resume the exercise of powers which they
still possess, and which they declare to belong to them, is
such a manner as to be in their own nature inalienable.
Look at the question practically; the practical issue, if any
issue is to be raised, of which as yet we are not informed,
the practical question at issue is whether it is to remain in
the hands of the House of Commons alone to adjust the
income and charges of the year. (Hear, hear.) Now,
sir, the doctrine upon which our financial proceedings
till last year has been founded has been this—that that has
been the exclusive right, and not the exclusive right alone,
but the eaclusive duty, of the House of Commons. Is
that charge capable of being divided between the two
houses of the legislature ? Is it practicable; can it lead to
anything but mischief and confusion ? I consent to look
at it merely in the utilitarian point of view, and I make
no appeal to the Houss of Commons and its public spirit,
and its sense of its duty, to preserve the privileges it has
inherited ; but is it practicable that you can bring two dis-
tinct bodies, each of them to exercise a separate judgment
on the separate parts of the finances, and yet not lead to
utter confusion and
,absurdity as the result. The conse-
quence would be, that whereas the finance of this country
has, on the whole, been creditably distinguished from that
of other countries, and in consequence the public credit of
~.he country had been raised to a height beyond that of any
other country, you would see that all those benefits would
be lost, and you would be compelled, in consequence of the
surrender of your privileges and the abandonment of your
duties—you would be compelled by the force of necessity to
return to the ancient system which you had rashly given up.
This is a point which, as it appears to me, is well worthy
the consideration of the house. It is said on all hands that
the House of Lords do not claim the power of amendment.
That is not literally true. The House of Lords has never—
and I must say they are perfectly right—declined to record
as against themselves this limitation of their privileges,
because cases might arise whereby the illegitimate incorpo
ration of measures not financial into financial measures it
might be wise and just for them to fall back on the whole
breadth of their privileges. But it is true that the House
of Lords has never abandoned by any corporate act of its
own the right of making amendments on any financial mea-
sure. But though the House of Lords has not abandoned
that right, speakers in the House of Lords, representatives
of the House of Lords, have abandoned it, and they admit
that the power of amending financial measures sent up to
them from the House of Commons is a power which they
do not hold. Now, in my opinion, the House of Commons
would be much safer if the House of Lords did claim, and
did exercise, a power of amendment, than it would be if
without recognising that power of amendment it continued
to send up its finances piecemeal. What is the case ?
Suppose the House of Lords made an amendment in this
bill for imposing duties, it comes back to us. We have
the power of taking our own course. But if, on the con-
trary, we strip the bill into shreds and patches, and send it
up to them in so many pieces, how do we then stand ? Not
only do the House of Lords revise our legislation—that it
could do by its power of amendment—but it revises
%7ithout appeal, and it is not simply that our finance is not
passed into law, but something else is passed, and we re
main, so far as the bills are concerned, without remedy or
redress. Therefore it seems to me this is a matter certainly
of very great consequence, and one on which there ought to
be no misunderstanding or doubt in the house. Do we or
do we not claim the right and the duty of granting aids and
supplies to the crown, or in modern language of adjusting
incomo and ohargo, no pertaining taus. and to ais mcelagavoly?
If we do claim it, I must say it seems to me that the course
adopted by the Government, besides being by far the most
convenient for freedom of discussion in the House of Com-

mons, is likewise the most advantageous, and, let me add,
the most re3pectfal and considerate mode we can adopt with
regard to the House of Lords. But if we do claim that
right, then I hape that some hon. gentleman will move to
rescind the resolution we passed last year. Either of those
courses is perfectly !egitimate and intelligible—l will not
say consistent; and as the hon. member for Sligo was not

a member of the house that passed the resolution, it would
not bo inconsistent in him, and would be fair to move that
the resolution be expunged from the journals of the house.
But what I hope will not be done is to flinch from declaring
clearly what is meant, and to take small objections to the
plan of the Government and to speak in vague and general
terms of the privileges of the ether house of Parliament,
which I quite admit are as sacred and as important to the
balance of the constitution as are our own privileges. I
can draw no distinction between them in point of import-
ance. The power of this house must always remain greater
than that of the House of Lords, but I believe that the in-
fringement of the privileges of the House of Lords or of
its functions, would be as fatal to the constitution as
would be the Loss of the privileges of this house itself.
But do not let us resort to mere vague expressions. Let us
know what we are about. As I understand this bill, it is
a bill which, without being intended to revive even the re-
collection of any irritating question, is intended, and is
also calculated to give to the House of Commons security
in the possession of those powers which are absolutely ne-
cessary for the discharge of one of its primary duties. That
I think is a fair description, at least so far as I am con-
cerned, of what is intended by this bill. Do let us have a
similar description of what is intended by those who object.
Do let us know if you say there is no distinction between
matters of legislation and matters of finance, and that it is
as much the duty of the House of Lords to revise and alter
the financial legislation of the House of Commons, as it is
to revise and alter any provision in any common Act of
Parliament. That is the question. That would be a mode
of procedure which would enable us in some degree to know
what we are about, because I must observe that except ir y
right hon. friend the member for Stroud, who certainly ex.
cited, I believe, great sentiments of satisfaction in those
who perhaps entertained the same opinions but who had not
the courage to avow them—except my right hon. friend the
member for Stroud there was not a man in the House of
Commons who during the discussions of last year ques-
tioned the doctrine that it was the exclusive duty of the
House of Commons to regulate the income and charges of
the country, although they contended that the House of
Lords exercised last year a right given to them by the con-
stitution. I se,t my right hon. friend the member for
Stroud, This budget, unfortunately, finds no favour in his
eyes. He says this budget gives a mortal stab to the con-

stitution. Now I want to know what constitution it gives
a mortal stab to. (Laughter.) In my opinion it gives no
stab at all ; but, as far as it alters, it alters so as to revive
and restore the good old constitution which took its root in
Saxon times, which groaned under the Plantagenets, which
endured the hard rule of the Tudors, which resisted the
Stuarts, and which had come to maturity under the House
of Brunswick. I think that constitution will be all the bet-

ter for the operation. As to the constitution laid clown by
my right hon. friend, under which there is to be a division
of function and office between the House of Commons and
the House of Lords with regard to fixing the income and
charge of the country from year to year, both of them being
equally responsible for it, which means that neither would
be responsible, as far as that constitution is concerned, I
cannot help saying that in my humble opinion the sooner
it receives a mortal stab the better. (Cheers.) As to the
form of the bill which has been presented by the Govern-

ment to the house, I cannot conclude without expre-sing
my full conviction that, both in numbers and in authority,
it will be found to have the very general assent of the
house, and I am convinced likewise that it is not less likely
to receive the approval of the country. Nor do I speak
simply of temporary or passing favour, but it will be ap-
proved by the deliberate judgment of the covntry, as being
conducive to it:. best and permanent interesf§, and as being
a proposal and a plan conceived in the true spirit of the con-,

stitution. (Ch eers .)
Mr. lIORSMAN said he did not attach to the right hon.
gentleman who had just sat down any peculiar responsibilty
with regard to the present measure. His position was doubt-
less different from that of the majority of the house, because
ket year he had only accepted the resolutions upon the con-
dition of reserving to himself the right of future action. The
question had been greatly narrowed by the right hon. gen-
tleman. It was not exactly a question of precedents, for
precedents in abundance could be found in favour of the
court zr both houses had pursued. It was not so much a
question of past precedent as of present policy. Last year
the Government had sent up their financial measures in two
bills ; now they were sending them all up in one. There
was a motive for seeking for precedents. What was the
necessity for it 2 It WAS to curtail and limit the functions of
the Lords on questions of finance. Where did the necessity
arise ? From the proceedings of last year. This now plan
was being adopted because the finance scheme of last year
had miscarried iu the House of Lords, and the bill was
designed as a censure upon the past proceedings of the