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

CUSTOMS AND INLAND REVENUE BILL.

Sir W. HEATIICOTE, 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 he was concerned, ho disclaimed any
opposition on his part to the budget as a whole. He bad
voted against it, but the 'louse uavii,E, ..amjnrity
to adopt it, he had only to consider the mode in which the
proposals were to bo submitted to Parliament, and upon
this point he had no hesitation in saying that the plan
adopted involved no violation of the principles 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 on the supposi-
tion that the privileges of the House of Lords were about
to be 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. He 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 CHANCELLOR 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 hear 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 I
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 surplus, as that had
been settled by a vote .f the house. His right hon. friend
then asked him 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
to year unclosed accounts involving large sums of money be-
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 to state also that so far as he believed there never was
a time, 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 impeenion, there..
payment to the Indian Government stood
fore, was that the
as it was—that was between £1,000,000 and £1,200,000.
His right hon, friend eeked him further whether any pay-
ment had been made on account of the claims of the Indian
Government previous to the late China
war. There was a
payment of about £440,000, 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 anyprovision made for excess on the army
votes, as he said there would be a large increase on certain
votes. He (the Chancellor of the Exchequer) mint leave
that to be explained by the representative of the War De-
partment in that house; but he might make this remark,
that his right hon, friend was full 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
proposal which required some explanation on the part of
his right ham. friend. (Hear.) He (the Chancellor of the
Exchequer) did not propose to enter at the present moment
into those personal matters that had occurred in the course
of the debate. (Hear.) Some of them related to himself,
which he thought it best to pass by ; but there were others
of them, such as the impeachment of the right hon. gentle-
man the mmenaber for Bucks as to what he had stated about
public expenditure, mad his former declarations respecting
the tea and sugar duties, he placed in a different category.
He thought these were fair matters for parliamentary attack
and controversy, and it wee only his respect for the house
which prevented him from entering at the present time into
those matters. He would, however, state his conviction that
he could perfectly prove to the house, from recorded facts
and declarations, that what he stated in 1857 with respect to
the tea and sugar duties was in entire consistency with
what he had said every year since, and now in the present
year. (Hear.) He thought it his duty, however, to revert to
what had been called the constitutional question in this de-
bate, as be could sot but- feel that Nun special reopmbibi.

. _
lity attached to him as finance minister for the plan cif the
' Government now before the house, and the particular
mode adopted in presenting it. They must recollect how
the house steed in point of argument and in °int 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 thew, 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 tho greatest weight,
as he was last year chairman of the committee which inves-
tigated this subject, and applied himself with the greatest
diligence to 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-
, visi.ns 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 eoncession 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 Londe
of a financial measure resembling the one before the house
for the repeal of the paper duties. In the early history of
this country oc taelringe, we thc constant practice, but'
else+ was when the House of Comme... and
established, and they made use of tacking as an ingenious
and legitimate weapon of self-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 subject 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 essentially dis
tinguished from it by propesals which had i no natural
cohesion. (Hear, hear.) He would now look at the cases
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 Oman
in court of justice for forging Exchequer bills. That was
the interpretation of the case of 1807. Then the hon. and
learned gentleman endeavoured to establish a third prin..
ciple, that in an act of supply the grant and the repeal 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 that 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 anthorise 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, hear.)
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 cc 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-
ton 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 every 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 while I think the proof is complete and doabsolute—
net think there is a single case mentioned by the
hon. and learned
gentleman which amounts t 3 more than
this, which
00 one disputes, that this course of combination
has been variously
of the tire at pursued, according to the circumstances
pr
We
II:ma thet
same time, while we speak so much of
n?t in any degree flinch from consider-
ing what is the precedent,
prioelel? involved in the measure, because
precedent is idle anti
object in view. NorYaPortant unless there be a rational
in
the first p
be
lace, I say that the
right hon. gentleman
was irrefragibly sound when he
PlP"ite, the member for Bucks,
tine. these propositions to thee stated that the method of
presen
ouse of Commons in
one and the same form, and bringing' thawte at one and the
h
same time under view, is distinctly for
advantage of
the House of Commons. It is impossible t() conceive
closer tie than that which unites these various items They
a
are the constituent members of one account, some standing
on one side of the account and others standing on the other.
And I say, all the advantage to' the House of Commons is
shown firet, 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 Soenersetshire, things that were separate
in the motion of the Government ; and secondly, that this
year, on the contrary, it was open to hon. members to make
their choice from the series of resolutions that were sub-
witted to them, and to select for themselves—a
privilege
to which they were entitled—to select for themselves the
rightpoint at which they chose to make their attack. It is only
ht
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
would be. But undoinubostetdlpyrot
member for Bucks
ph ee rrleyi
su rmg
oe
rde lia
tt h ye eetters tehat
than it
this. I am not about to enter into a discussion on the na-
ture Q 1 the PrQceediuga taken 135, the Roue Qg lards het

year. I have heard members on the other side 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-
-titade, is a sentiment which is at once so ennobling and so
rare that I should be exceedingly loath to interfere with an
expression of it, or endeavour to check an effusion which
we ought to inspect so much. I excuse myself on that
ground, and on other grounds, for referring to the conduct
of the House of Lords. I will do nothing except discuss,
not the privileges merely but the duties of the House of
Commons. The whole question, I think, is really this—it
arises out of the resolution passed last year on the mo-
tion of my noble friend at the head of the Government,
" 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 gees 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, in
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 exclusive duty, of the House of Commons. Is
Lust -1--ese 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
the 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
without 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 smatter 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
income and charge, as pertaining to us, and to us exclusively?
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 respectful and considerate mode we can adopt with
regard to the House of Lords. But if we do claim that
right, then I hope that some hon. gentleman will move to
rescind the resolution we passed last year. Either of those
courses is perfectly legitimate 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 home 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 my
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. frieud 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 see 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 down by
my right hon. friend, under which there is to be a division
of function and office between the House of Commons and
Vae 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 e the bill which has been presented by the Govern-
ment to the house, I cannot conclude without expressing
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 j tt dgment of the country, as being
conducive to its; best and permanent interests, and as being
a proposal and a plan conceived in the true spirit of the con-
stitution. (Ch eers .)
Mr. HORSMAN 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
last 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
come e 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? 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 new pl, n
was being adopted because the finance scheme of last year
had miscarried in the House of Lords, and the bill was
designed as a cetattre um the past proceedings of the

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-
pend mt 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-
per and constitutional; and from that he drew the conclu-
sion—ergo, he must prevent them ever acting again in a
similar manner. That was a conclusion wruca ue luwaelr
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,ny 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 tfie
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 ♦ictory 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. (Hear.) He advised his
friends not to follow the rash advice of the hon. baronet
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 with 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 Lords, 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 suffi-
cientfor the wants of the year, and that was agreed to bythe
Lords. But when the Commons passed the bill for the repeal
of the paper duty, the Lords rejected it on grounds 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 in 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 arrangements 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 not he 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 sacrifice 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
not been accompanied by the others, but it was now pro-
posed to act on the first only ; paying no attention 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. The hon. member for Birmingham bad said this
was his Budget, but had 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 Commons.
His expressions with respect to the House of Lords were
fully in 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 Birmingham was one
of the heads, and for the benefit of its leaders. As an in-
dependent member ho warned the lime against the

course they were 'Arguing with respect to the system of
tacking bills. (Hear, hear.) The honourable member
referred to some of the speeches of the 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 should 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-
racter, 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 tot 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
repeal 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,
eert.in dntieta nn glass. aria in flint, loaf
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 in 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 of the 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 ea the question he thought that the reten.
tion of the paper duty must 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 hoped 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
resolutions 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 house. 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. BRIGHT—I beg to explain. I assure the hon.
member that I never said anything of the kind; and I
should never assent to a proposition so unjust.
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 re ilised property—a tax in some way distin-
guished 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 of 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 1853, 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 taxation 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
" No, no," but he contended that what he said was correct.
Mr. W. DUNCOMBE 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
redaction 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 I 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 ended 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
wero urged to the method proposed by my right hbn. friend
of putting all his financial arrangements into one bill,
which was said to be 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, that 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-
material 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-
ment of the matters to be sent up to the other house. (Hear,
hear.) And then when—good, simple-minded people--we
were looking upon the whole 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. (A 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.
(11411,31,ter.) Being ao far agreed, I was kiliopeo that the

termination of these discussions might be peaceful and satis •
factory ; but up get the right hot. member for Stroud, and
throws the torch of discord into our hitherto comparatively
peaceable debates. My right hon. friend wants to set every
body by the ears. (Laughter.) First of all he endeavours to
sow dissension in the Cabinet, then he endeavours to set the
two houses in collision, and, not content with that, he car-
ries his disturbing intentions so far as to try to get up a
war between members of the House of Commons and their
constituents. I beg to assure him that he will entirely failin
his first object. (Cheers.) He will not succeed by any taunts
of his in creating dissensions in the Cabinet. (Hear.) With
regard to his second object I am convinced he will be equally
unsuccessful, as we have heard to night from persons com-
petent to speak, in creating hostility between the two houses.
That is a very satisfactory consolation. With regard to hos-
tility between members and their constituents—(laughter)—
speaking generally for the house as a body, I am equally
convinced that his endeavour will fail; but as far as his
assertions may be founded on any local knowledge which
he may possess n ith regard to any particular electoral body
of course I cannot pretend to give an opinion. I refer that
entirely to him. (Loud laughter.) I will only say that it
is an established maxim " Blessed are the peacemakers ; "
but what may be the fato of those who are sowers of dis-
sension, instigators of discord, and promoters of quarels, is
not so clearly defined. (Laughter.) Whatever it may be,
I am afraid my right hon. friend is determined to share in
it. (Loud laughter.)

Mr. DISRA ELl—The agreeable but unexpected obser-
vations of the noble lord appear to me to be,'generally speak-
ing, founded on an entire misconception of what has taken
place during the last week. (Hear.) The first statement
of the noble lord was that we now admit a surplus, which
we formerly denied. I think the noble lord will find on re-
flection that there is no foundation whatever for that state-
ment. (Oh, and cheers.) What has most struck me in the
course of these discussions has been the strength of convic-
tion manifested by hon, gentlemen opposite, who, however,
hale prudently abstained from rising and expressing it in
debate. (A. laugh.) Some hon. members have groaned at
and dissented from the statement I have just made. All
have admitted—the Chancellor of the Exchequer himself
has admitted—an enormous deficiency for the year ; all have
admitted—it cannot be denied—that we have been obliged
to meet that deficiency by renewing taxes, mainly war taxes,
to a vast amount; and the simple question before us was
whether we should renew those taxes to an 'amount that
would satisfy the demands of the service, or whether we
should renew them to an amount that would•create an arti-
fisisl surplus. That is the whole situation. If von had
followed what I believe to be a prudent course, you would
have lightened the burdens of the people to the largest ex-
tent of your power, and you would have renewed the war
taxes only to the amount that was necessary for the public
service. (Cheers.) But when you refused to adopt that
policy, when you chose to follow a caprice of finance, and to
renew the war taxes to an amount that gave you a surplus of
£2,000,000 above the demands of the public service, then
we said, "Do with the whole of that what you proposed
to do with a half—namely, apportion it to the reduction of
the war taxes which you are renewing." You agreed with
us as far as the income tax is concerned, and we proposed
that the same process should be applied to the war tax on
tea. That is the whole question. It may not have been
understood at one time by the house, though it is now, but
it has always been thoroughly understood by the country.
You have created an artificial surplus, in order that you
might perpetrate a financial caprice. (Cheers.) We tried to
bring you into a more healthy and advantageous position.
Yet you seem proud of the triumph which you have ac-
complished ! What is that triumph ? In a house of more
than 600 members, by a bare majority, a majority of 18, a
majority in a certain degree supplied by members who sit
habitually opposite to you, and who voted for your mea-
sure, not because they approved your policy, but because
they shrink from the responsibility of disturbing your Go-
vernment—you have to this moment, and only to this mo-
ment, succeeded in the first step of carrying your policy
into effect. (Cheers.) What is the situation of the noble
lord—of this wise and experienced Minister ? He is forcing
by a bare majority, not furnished by his legitimate sup-
porters—(cries of " No," and cheers)—a financial policy
upon the country through this house, and telling you at
the same time that that policy shall not be submitted
to the consideration of the other house of Parlia-
ment. I say the noble lord, in thus forcing a finan-
cial policy upon the country by a bare and illegiti-
mate majority, avowedly furnished by ambiguous means, is
straining the Constitution. (" Oh," and cheers.) Then we
are told that we have shifted our ground—that we have
brought forward a great constitutional question, and shrink
from the issue which we ourselves selected. (Cheers from
the Ministerial benches.) Who said so ? I think it was the
hon. and learned gentleman who represents the borough of
Southwark. He has favoured us with a speech of choice elo-
quence, in which he imputed motives pretty freely, and
commented upon our conduct in that grotesque style which
I have no doubt suits the hustings he has just left. (Laugh-
ter.) The hon. and learned gentleman says I set up ray hon.
friend the member for Stamford as a kite in order to dis-
cover the temper of the house. Why does he say so ? Oh,
precious reason ? He is well acquainted with my hon. friend;
he has observed his conduct, and he remembers his speech
on the Reform Bill of 1858. He says he listened with in-
tense interest to my hon. friend when he spoke on that oc-
casion, and more than six times he believed he was going to
say I was about to accept the resolutions proposed by the
noble lord the member for London. Six times did he believe
that ? I should rather have thought he believed that the
policy recommended to us at that time would be accepted
and acted upon by the noble lord himself. (Cheers.) That,
I think, would have been a little more satisfactory to the
electors of Southwark than the precious story asout kites
we have heard to-night—a story suggestive of considerations
and circumstances which should have restrained the too
exuberant zeal, and taught some discretion to the tongue of
the hon. and learned gentleman. The Reform Bill of 1858,
coupled with what has since occurred, was not exactly the
subject which an ardent and prudent supporter of the pre.
sent Ministry would have chosen as an instrument of attack
against us for our conduct in the matter of the budget.
(Cheers) But what is this great constitutional ques-
tion ? it is much simpler than we at first supposed,
though its simplicity cannot be surprising to those who were
members of the committee last year, including the noble
lord himself. The fact is, I believe, there is no right
of the Commons which, if you search their journals, you
cannot prove. On the other hand, there is no right of
the Lords which, if you search their journals, you cannot
also prove. That is the whole state of the case as regards
precedents. It is the natural consequence of dealing with
an ancient Constitution that has gradually risen and gra-
dually adapted itself to the wants and necessities of a great
people. (Hear, hear.) You have in the archives of the
Lords the haughty records of restriction : you have
in the journals of the Commons the rude annals of privilege
In either mighty code you will find sufficient authority for
what a factious Minister or an excited Parliament may think
proper to undertake. We flattered ourselves, however, that
we had not to deal with a factious Minister, but with a man
who has had great experience of public affairs, and who,
by his temperate conduct and moderate counsels, bas gene-
rally been acceptable to Parliament. (Hear.) What was the
conduct of the noble lord when he had to do that which he did
honestly, plainly, directly, and skilfully last year—when he
had to accommodate modern circumstances to ancient pre-
cedents ? He gave us temperate counsels, and if the resolu-
tions passed last year had been followed in their spirit by the
House of Commons—if they had been followed in the spirit
which was expressed in the speech of the noble lord when he
introduced them—a speech which was accepted by the
house as an explanation of their meaning—there could have
been no misunderstanding on the subject. I believe,in-
deed, that at the beginning of the session it had never en-
tered into the mind of the noble lord that there could be
any misunderstanding on the subject. (Hear, hear.) But
then another influence began, as last session, to appear and
to give a colour to public events and the conduct of Minis-
ters ; and what we complain of is that the policy which
arose from this second and sinister influence is not
one that is dictated by high considerations of State, by a
due regard to the spirit of our constitution, or by a due re-
spect for the privileges of the other House of Parliament,
but has arisen from accidents, from circumstances, from
private understandings, and from private pique. (Cheers)
Hence the difficult and dangerous position in which this
house now finds itself placed—a position far beyond consi-
derations of party, far beyond the mere interests of indivi-
dual members—a position which may result in the most
ruinous consequences to the constitution of the country.
We are, in consequence of these occult influences, brought
to this condition—that we are straining the constitution, we
are unnecessarily and wantonly bringing into possible col-
lision the privileges and powers of co-ordinate branches. of
the Legislature. Under what circumstances are w,act acting
thus ? When, in the very House of Parliament wh ac-
cording to the view now advocated by the noble lord, can
alone benefit by that policy, parties are evenly
balanced, or
tinythanobs;voecrt toto the noble
rather a bare majority is obtained by the Government by
lord.meathe mere
nslthsaeym,
aosstlfasacitditiolausst.
yeTahr,attbisa
form in which a budget is produced welt, d be to offer an
objectibn which I admit is not technically valid. But why
did you not bring forward your measure last year in the
form which you now prefer ? I should have been glad to
see the Chancellor of the Exchequer's scheme of last year
in one measure. But if it was not expedient last year to in-
clude all your measure in one bill, why, I would ask, is it
necessary now ? In order to find a reason for this change we
must look back and see what has occurred in the interval.
Taking that retrospective glance we are led to perceive that
it is to the conduct of the House of Lords that this course
of procedure is advisable. 'Well, and what has been that
conduct ? it is conduct which has been pronounced by the
right hon. baronet the member for Carlisle—a great autho-
rity—as being perfectly legal and constitutional. It is
not, therefore, because of its illegality or unconstitutional
character that you object to the step which the House of
Lords took last year. W hat, let me ask, was the policy of that
step ? The House of Lords were of opinion that, as the finan-
cial scheme of the Government was sent up to them, there
would, if they sanctioned it, be a deficit for the year which
has just terminated, and therefore theyused their legal right
—aright not contested in this house by any one but the Chan-
cellor of the Exchequer, I believe—and prevented a branch
of permanent revenue from being abolished. (Hear, hear.)
What has been the result ? You had at the expiration of
tlw Apt fixtucial Fear 4 deficit eF 42:500,000, which doficit

would have amounted to L 3,590,000 hal the House of Lords
not pursued the course to which lam adverting. (Hear.)
It appears that the conduct of the house in this respect was
legal, constitutional, politic, and most advantageous to the
public interest. W;iat then is the ground—the real ground
—on which we are called on to adopt a course quite the con-
trary of that which we took last year ? It must be this or it is
nothing—that it is sought to deprive the other House of
Parliament of the exercise of a power which you admit was
legally and constitutionally exercised, and which the nation
has ratified as sound and politic. (Hear, hear.) That is the
real position in which this question stands. There is no
meaning in language if the noble lord at the head of the Go-
vernment contemplated, when he was introducing his resolu-
tions on the subject last year, the course which he now ad vises
us to pursue. (Hear, hear,) And what does the noble lord
gain by taking this course ? As the chief Minister of this
country he has been, if not supported by an enthusiastic
majority, at all events with such a measure of forbearance
on the part of this house that he cannot say he has been
seriously inconvenienced previous to these discussions 011
any paint during the whole of the session. What is his posi-
tion now ? He has given his adhesion to a policy which no-
body but the few who were in the secret could have expected
he would sanction, inasmuch as it is a policy totally opposed
to the sentiments expressed in the speech to which I have
already alluded—(hear, hear)—and in which the noble
lord placed an interpretation on the resolutions which he
moved on the occasion, which was adopted by this house
in faith and trust that it was an interpretation by which the
noble lord was prepared to abide. (Hear, hear.) The noble
lord now finds himself in a House of Commons in which:his
authority is severely criticised, and in which, when a divi-
sion on an important subject is called for, putting that au-
thority to the test, he escapes only by a bare majority, and
that, too, a majority of every ambiguous character. (Hear.)
It has not, therefore, I say, been on the part of the noble
lord a mere movement so far as Parliament is concerned
unnecessarily to raise this conflict, and when we aro told
that " blessed is the peacemaker," and listen to the elabo-
rate reproof which the noble lord addressed to a right hon.
gentleman whose only fault was that he gave a most
logical answer to the Chancellor of the Exchequer and
other hon, gentlemen who preceded him on this question,
I would remind the noble lord that he is the man who has
raised unnecessary discord in the House of Commons; that
he is the man who has most unnecessarily provoked dissen-
sions in the house, and has caused his authority to be
questioned where before it was not challenged. (Hear,
hear.) I may say, speaking for gentlemen on this aide of
the house, that we are not at all afraid of the position in
which this question is placed. We entirely repudiate the
accusation that we provoke unnecessary debate. The con-
fidence which I repose in public opinion leads me to feel
assured that the general sentiment prevailing throughout
the country is that this was a subject which required
to be: discussed ; that, under all the circumstances of
the case, deliberation was desitable, but that the
peculiar position in which we now find ourselves when
a Minister has introduced a strange, unusual, I may
say even an unprecedented course of procedure, which
entirety deprives the other House of Parliament of its power
of revision, rendered it expedient that we should act
with double deliberation, and deal with the utmost
caution with the policy of the Government in this
particular instance. That policy I look upon as being
extremely unwise. I will not say it was mean in device
and malignant in conception (cries of " Oh, oh," and cheers)
—I will not say that ; but when this is recommended to our
notice as a policy of conciliation, I may be disposed :to
retort—anything. (A laugh.) But we are asked why,
tifakewn w
e,
deisapprove the course which Ministers have
do not oppose the second reading of the Bill
under our consideration ? My answer is, that we have
already given our assent to the provision respecting the
Income-tax, which constitutes a principal part of the mea-
sure, and that as when the resolutions relating to the paper
duty were passed we reserved to ourselves the right to
take with reference to all the other subjects involved in
the measure whatever course we might deem expedient on
the future stages of these proposals, so now we reserve to
ourselves a similar right. That is a course perfectly Par-
liamentary, although I should not be astonished to find
that a member of the Government may hereafter rise in his
place and pronounce it to be unconstitutional, inasmuch as
we heard the Chancellor of the Exchequer declare that
when resolutions affecting a duty passed, the House of
Commons was to some extent precluded from considering
the propriety of those resolutions on subsequent occasions.
Not withstanding that declaration, however, we shall avail
ourselves of our constitutional right, and when proper
opportunity offers we shall hold ourselves free to take into
consideration the policy involved in this bill, which we
loelieve to be a policy dangerous to the country. I make
this statement because the noble lord at the head of the
Government the other night, in one of those gay assump-
tions in which he is so happy—(a laugh)—proved to his
own satisfaction, and I trust his slumbers were in conse-
quence rosy—(laughter)—that we had given in our adhe-
sion to every portion of the scheme of the Chancellor of
the Exchequer. I do not wish. the noble lord
to remain any longer under that delusion. We at first
agreed to the passing of the resolutions, in order
that the bill founded upon them might be brought
in, reserving to ourselves the right—upon the occasion
which might seem to us proper and fitting, and in the wan-
nor which we might deem the most judicious, the most
conducive to the public interest, and the best calculated to
attain the end which we desired—to challenge a policy
which, speaking generally, we entirely disapprove, and we
believe finds little favour among the people of Englan•
(Cheers.)
The bill was then read a second time.
The Landed Property Improvement (Ireland) Bill, the
Guildford Hospital Bill, and the Cork Infirmary Bill passed
through committee.

The Excise and Stamps Bill and the Volunteers Tolls
Exemption (No. 2) Bill were read a second time.
The report on the Public Offices Extension (Revenues °f
India) Bill was agreed to.

The Combination of Parishes Dissolution (Scotland) Bill
was read a third time and passed.
A bill to amend the law relating to the fisheries of salmon
and trout in England, and a bill to facilitate the laying
down of rails in the highways and streets of England were
brought in and read a first time.
The house adjourned at 20 minutes to 1 o'clock.

RICHMOND PARK.—A return presented to Par-
liament shows that 1,378 acres of Richmond Park, seven•
twelfths of the whole, have been drained, and the averse
cost has been £6 7s. 4d. per acre.

[ADVERTISEMENT]..—It is ever a pleasing duty of a
journalist to introduce to his readers some new discovery
calculated to benefit that vast portion of our fellow-cren-
tures, which has the strongest claims upon our sympathies.
It is with this feeling that we call the attention of invalids
to the following extracts from Du Barry's interesting
report of Cures without medicine by Du Barry's Revslents
Arabica Food. Cure No. 52,422.—Bridgehouse, Frimlef
Surrey, 3d April 1854. I have suffered these 33 years con-
tinually fram diseased lungs, spitting of blood, liver de-
rangement, deafness, singing in the ears, constipation, de-
bility, shortness of breath and cough, which have been re-
moved by your Revalenta Arabica. My lungs, liver, sto-
mach, head, and ears, are all right, my hearing perfect,
and my recovery is a marvel to all my acquaintances.
James Roberts. Cure No. 36,418. Rev. Dr'
Minster of cramps, spasms, and daily veraitings.
Avoid Pills and Medicines : they invariably aggravate and
perpetuate diseases ; their annoyance, disappointments
and expense may be avoided by using Du Barry's F
which, at a few pence per day, saves 6C times its cost is
other remedies, removing effectually, without purgint
constipation, indigestion (dyspepsia) nervous, bilious an
liver complaints and all their consequences. Certificate
No. 36,418. We find it the safest remedy. Andrew Ure,
MD., F.R.S., Dr Harvey, Dr. Wurzer, Dr. Shorland,
Campell. Let invalids avoid the fearful dangers of spw,
rious and injuriou, imitations offered under a varietye.
false pretences. Nevill's imitations are prohibited by the
high Court of Chancery under a penalty of £5,000 ageing;
Alfred Hooper Nevin and his agents; and the pretences
that Nevill has a patent for Arabica Food and that PI
Barry's are connected with such patent are utterly false'
No canister is genuine without the name Barry Du Barry
and Co., 77, Regent-street, in full, ontheseal and wraPPar:•
Shopkeepers who attempt imposition in one article must
expect to be distrusted in all others. Packed in tins 1 _
2s. 9d.; 21b. 4s. 63. ; 51b. 11s. ; 121 b. 22a.; 241 b. 40s. The
olf2lpb.os
tandPost-office
bo.
order
ad
enr st eb
yr a
Barry
senty
D u carriageßarry
and freec
.on,7r7e, c
tee 1 Pt
gent-street, London; Fortnum Mason, and Co.; Abbie,
60, Gracechurch-street ; 4, Cheapside; 63 and 160, OV
bard-street ; 330 and 451, Strand; 49 and 60, Bishopegate'
street ; Batty, 16, Finsbury Pavement ; Phillips and Ca'
tea-dealers; Petty, Wood, and Co King William-street
City ; at 127 High Hof born ; and all grocers.