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

(Cheers.) My right hon. friend the member for the Uni-
versity of Cambridge, who presided over the labours of the
committee with so much impartiality,, in his report refers
particularly to the weakening of the power of s house
over matters of taxation ; and in the two last paragraphs
of the report he shows that there has been a tendency to
make the large duties perpetual in general statutes, which
consequently keeps back a large amount of annual taxa
tion till the close of the session, and for the purpose of pro-
viding for the interest on the national debt and other
charges of a permanent character. (Hear, hear.) Will
you allow me to 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 them as much as possible in one mea-
sure, so as to form the financial 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 person who in committee moved
the omission of those paragraphs. Why ? Because I
thought that the duty confided to us by the house was to
search for precedents, and that it was 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 ;
but 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 Corsn.ons 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. The framework 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.
(-Mar, 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 El supply bill be in peri
inateria 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 I
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 the rights of the Commons.
Lord Macaulay lays it down that the Lords must either
accept ot reject the whole bill, and remarks that the
measure of 1700 was in the nature of a tick, but so jealous
were the Commons that they insisted on its being passed.
Lord Macaulay graphically describes the scene. All the
passages 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
haves 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 I
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 confluence of this
house from the present Government, they could seize no
fitter time for deposing the Government than by procuring
the 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 with 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 hustings 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, 1
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 ot 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; he 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 token 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 0n..-sided French treaty. Aseurn-
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 surpltv of
about £400,0A, 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
fivepence 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 reaeal 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 •
dueion 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 ls. 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
fbruadmgeedt .
wiltht wasobject a
considering this one elemen
with so little favour in the count
condemned in that houqe. Ile h
optreov
en the House of Lords
e ybudget which had met
ard. iisten and
withedhad 'een ne.dar.
ly
able interest to the very animated speech i. whichl ;11' e
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 mann.
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•
tars which had for the moment attracted his attention. s'he
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,
end in short, the conclo-
sicn left on his mind was that the right hon. gentleman
intended, provided only the legislature would consent to
abolish the duty nn
Paper, to introduce this now 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 eLitau to do for themselves that which the House of
Inard,4 did for theta last year, they should take a course

which would not jeopardise any great manufacture likely to
spring out of the remission of the paper duty. It was a
matter also for the consideration of the house whether, if
paper was to be turned to the manufacture of the multi-
farious articles mentioned by the Chancellor of the Ex-
chequer, there would not be so much the less for the more
important purposes to which it was at present devoted.
They were told by the Chancellor of the Exchequer that
the paper duty was a retrograde duty, and the right hon.
gentleman had also told them that, whatever the circum-
stances, the paper duty must go on increasing. Which of
these statements was the house to take ? Was it to be
deemed a progressive duty, or was it to be denounced as
cam thy of condemnation on the ground of its retrograde
qualities ? He c ould understand this argument as applied
to some excise duties, which, if not retrograde, were sta-
tionary. Mal', for instance, in 1831 produced £5,036,667,
and in 1858, in spite of the improvements that had taken
place in the manufacture, and in spite of the increase of the
population, the amount was only £5,592,624. But the paper
duty, which produced in 1831 £730,000, produced in
1858 £1,281,023. Again, malt in 1836 produced
£.5,699,878, as compared with £5,592,624 in 1858; but paper
increased in every one of the subsequent years, with one
exception only, and the result was as follows :—in 1836 it
produced £841,131; in 1858, £1,282,023; in 1859, £1,281,023;
in 1860, £1,451,258; and in 1861 it reached the hitherto
unapproachable point of £1,462,825. This was the tax that
was about to be repealed as a comparatively unproductive
source of revenue, and let the house obse►ve what would be
the effect of the repeal. It had been the policy of the
house during the last few years to abolish innumerable
duties of customs and excise, and the result had been that
the taxation of the country was now placed upon compara-
tively very few articles. And let it be remembered that
every fresh duty they altogether repealed must have the
effect of rivetting still more firmly the duty on the re-
maining taxable articles. Therefore the effect of repeal-
ing this duty on paper must and would be to prevent
those remissions in the other excise duties, or indeea in any
other duties, which might in the opinion of the house
have a better claim for repeal than the excise duty on paper.
He thought there were few in that house who would, from
the extraneous political considerations to which he had ad-
verted, and which ought not to be regarded in discussing
financial questions in the house, support the repeal of this
tax. Who was there that would maintain, that in itself
and by itself the duty on paper was so much more obnoxious
than any other of the duties left upon the statute book that
ought to have priority in remission ? That was not the ge-
neral view in the house—it was not the general view enter-
tained by the country at large ; and with regard to the opi-
nions of foreigners, who might be regarded as impartial
judges, a well-known writer in the Journal des Debate de-
scribed the application of the surplus by Mr. Gladstone as a
measure of conciliation to the radical press, which had given
rise to universal discontent in the country. The right hon.
gentleman had on a former occasion referred in contemptu-
ous terms to the expression of opinion the country had given
in regard to the budget through the authorised means of
petitions ; but he (Lord J. Manners) did not know how
they could better arrive at a knowledge of the views of the
country than from the petitions presented to the house.
Now, if any one referred to the papers sent round that
morning he would see that the number of petitions in favour
of the financial scheme of the Government fell infinitely
short of those which condemned it. The right hon. gentle-
man the member for Carlisle (Sir J. Graham) seemed
anxious that this question should be made a party struggle,
but he for one should very much regret any such result.
The Opposition side of the house had shown during the pig-
sent session every disposition to support her Majesty's
Government, and to maintain them in office. The noble
lord at the head of the Government, he was certain,
would not have forgotten a certain memorable evening
when, attacked from behind with a vigour seldom excelled
in that house, he owed his safety to the mediation and de-
fence that came from the Opposition benches. He did
not then share in the desire of the right hon. gentle-
man ; but, at the same time, he believed that never had an
occasion during the session been presented more important
than this, and never had there been an occasion when it
more behoved the House of Commons to refuse its consent
to the attempt which was now being made to sacrifice to
the contingency of party alike financial safety and constitu-
tional rights. (Hear.) They had given the budget the care-
ful, minute, and impartial consideration which the import-
ance of the Chancellor of the Exchequer's proposals deserved,
and they found in them the unmistakeable signs of a poli-
tical origin and a fatal disregard to the best interests of the
nation. (Hear.) In sorrow, then, rather than in anger, they
said to the right hon. gentleman, " Take back your budget,
and reserving to times of more undoubted surplus your
glowing visions of theoretical finance, submit to us a pro-
position which may at once satisfy the best requirements
of the people and maintain unimpaired the financial re-
sources and credit of the country." (Cheers.)
Sir F. GOLDSMID supported the second reading of the
bill.

Mr. BOLT thought the course adopted by the Govern •
ment novel, and calculated to nullify the action of the
other branch of the Legislature, which he deprecated, be-
cause, although he admitted that the House of Commons
had the fullest right of taxation, it was with the qualification
that it had the assent of the other branches of the Legis-
lature.
Mr. COLLIER said that there was no case in which the
House of Lords had rejected taxing bills on purely finan-
cial grounds, and therefoi e he thought the course proposed
of placing all the resolutions on the Budget in one bill was
legal and constitutional.
Mr. WHITESIDE expressed his surprise at the bold
tone of the hon. and learned gentleman in his denial of
the right of the Peers to act as they di 1 last session,
remembering that On very high constitutional autho-
rity the Nestor of the 11011s3 of Lords had declared that
history and precedent alike justified the course which
they took. (Hear, hear.) The right hon. baronet (Sir J.,
Graham) was not prepared to assert that the House of
Lords had exceeded their privileges, but while he admitted
they had not acted in an unconstitutional manner, he still
called upon the house to adopt measures to prevent their
doing the same thing again. The right hon. baronet had
quoted Mr. Pitt's conduct in connection with the French
treaty, when it was said that the Lords had attempted
to sever two bills—the Consolidation of the Customs
and the consideration of the treaty. Now, Mr.
Fox on that occasion was of opinion that the two
measures ought to have been divided, and Mr.
Grenville objected to the severance of the bills.
The right hon. gentleman turned to another subject and
said the noble lord (Lord J. Russell) had done a very wise
thing in providing for a permanent duty, but the right hon.
gentleman said there was still a drawback in that arrange-
ment. Lord Mansfield said in his judicial capacity that a
resolution of the Howe of' Commons he would not regard
the result of making a tax a permanent one. What he
(Mr. Whiteside) wished them to observe was this, that the
House of Commons could not deal with it annually. Where
was there a bill, he would ask, within 50 years past, drawn
up in the present form ? (Hear, hear.) The right hon. ba-
ronet, with his logical mind, would say, why did the right
hon. gentleman (the Chancellor of the Exchequer) do the
matter right last year and wrong on the present occasion ?
(Hear.) The noble lord who had been twice Lord Chan-
cellor (Lord Lyndhurst), and whose judgment was looked
up to by half the civilised world, showed unmistakably that
the Lords had the right to take the course which they
wisely pursued in the last session. Was it just—was it
constitutional—was it wise to compel the Lords to
adopt the bill so framed as the present bill was,
and to give their assent to a measure which in
their consciences they felt bound to reject in
the last session of Parliament ? (Hear.) Now, was not the
bill upon the table one of a moat objectionable description?
Why should such a bill be brought in in a committee of
ways and means for the supplies c f the year, instead of
being introduced and considered in the ordinary way of any
bill for the repeal of a particular duty? (Hear, hear.) He
firmly believed that nothing but an overwhelming sense of
duty could have induced the House of Lords to throw out
the bill which the right hon. gentleman had sent up to
them last session. When the right hon. baronet held out
a threat as to what they might expect by an appeal to the
country, he (Mr. 'Whiteside) would answer that taunt by
saying, " Wee be to the present Government if they went to
the country with a cry of paper against tea and sugar.
(Opposition cheers.) Believing the present bill to be intro-
duced with the view of insulting the Upper Chamber, and
of the Chancellor of the Exchequer taking his revenge for
the defeat he sustained last session, he felt bound to give
every opposition to the course which the Government had
determined upon pursuing. (Opposition cheers.)
Lord J. RUSSELL—The right hon. gentleman who has
just sat down has argued the case with groat ingenuity.
But even the ingenuity of the right hon. gentleman can
never argue away the constitutional privileges of this house.
(Hear.) I have heard in the course of this debate many
arguments against the course the Government intend to
pursue ; but many of those arguments were far wide of the
subject under consideration, and were directed evidently to
some other than the measure before the house. (Hear.)
Now the hon. and learned gentleman who opened the de •
bate this evening in a very able speech argued most con-
clusively against a tack. He referred to the case of 1807 ;
but there the case occurred in which the passing of the
malt tax was joined with the question of the legality of cer-
tain acts of the Auditor of the Exchequer, and it was quite
certain that was a question by itself and not a question of
money or supply, and therefore the Lords were perfectly
right in rejecting the bill. (Hear.) I quite admit that
while on the one hand it is our bounden duty to assert our
ancient privileges—(hear)--on the other hand, the Lords
should have a right of asserting theirs ; but forcing the
Lords by means of money bills has been abandoned for
nearly a century and a half. (Hear.) But all the argu-
ments against tacking fell to the ground, and have no ap-
plication. (Hear.) I take it that the question before the
house is whether we are justified by the law of Parliament
in introducing into a bill several measures of finance bear-
-ing on the financial arrangements of the year, and whether
it is right and expedient to exercise- that power. (Hear.)
Now, hon. gentlemen who agreed last year almost unani-
mously to the resolutions Proposed by my noble friend at
the head of the Government seem now to have forgotten
what those resolutions were. (Hear.) The first of those
resolutions wes that it was the right of the Hialae of Com-
mons to grant aid auci supplies to the Crowu, and that that
right is in, the Commons alone, (Hear.) 'Well, if you agree