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

IMPERIAL PARLIAMENT.

HOUSE OF LORDS—YESTERDAY.
RAGGED SCHOOLS.
The Earl of SHAFTESBURY moved for the evidence
nu which that part of the report of the Education
Commission which related to ragged schools was founded.
The Duke of NEWCASTLE eulogised the report as one
of the most impartial and fair reports that had ever been
laid before the house. The investigation had been most
laborious, and would lead to considerable good as regarded
he education of the country. So far as ragged schools were
concerned, the report only went to this, that it could not
look upon those schools as part of the permanent educa-
tional institutions, and therefore could not recommend that
they should share in grants of the public money.
Lord PORTMAN bore testimony to the value of these
schools in preparing children for other schools forming
part of the educational system of the country, but he did
not think they were of that permanent character which
entitled them to share in the grants voted by the State.
Earl GRANVILLE having expressed himself to the
same r.lect,
The Earl of SHAFTESBURY replied, and
The motion was withdrawn.
The Passengers (Australian Colonies) Bill and the Mar-
riages Validity Bill were passed through committee.
Their lordships then adjourned.

HOUSE OF COMMONS.—YESTERDAY.
CUSTOMS AND INLAND REVENUE BILL.
On the motion for the second reading of this bill,
Mr. MACDuNOGH complained tbat the bill for the
repeal of the paper duties, which the House of Lords re-
jected last year, was now annexed to a +bill of supply, and
contended that that was a course contrary to the spirit M
the constitution. There was only one precedent for this
proceeding, and that was unsuccessful. He called upon
the house to strike out the objectionable clauses, and in-
clude them in a separate bill.
Sir J. GRABAm—The hon. and learned gentleman has
received the congratulations of his friends, and I also will
congratulate him upon the argument which he has used.
Both sides of the house have listened with great pleasure
and satisfaction to the hon. and learned gentleman's speech.
I should not have risen so soon, but I am afraid if I wait
until a later hour in the evening I should have missed the
opportunity of offering some observations to the house. The
question raised by the hon. and learned gentleman seems to
me to be of such importance that I cannot remain altoge-
thersilent upon it. (Hear.) If the question of the second
reading of this bill had assumed a wider range I should have
been content to leave the arguments upon it where they
rest, after the full discussion which the budget has a;ready
undergone. We have cleared the ground as to a surplus,
for a surplus has been admitted ; and it is admitted, also,
that the remission of taxes is desirable, and the amount of
remission is unquestionable. The proposal of remission on
the other side was larger than that of the Government, and
the question as between tea and paper has been decided by
a majority of the house, and therefore I will not wander into
that subject. Indeed, in my present state I should not be
able to do so ; therefore I shall confine my few remarks to
the constitutional question which the argument of the hon.
and learned gentleman has raised. Before my right hon.
friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer avails himself of that
locus penitentite which the hon. and learned gentleman so
generously affords him as to this mode of legislation, and
before the house adopts the argument of the learned gentle-
man, and regrets the form which this bill has assumed, em-
bracing both the remission and the imposition of taxes, I wish
to say a few words upon the question. In the last session of
Parliament I incurred the displeasure of many of my hon.
friends sitting below the gangway for the part I took in
cemmittee upstairs on the vote which the House of Lords
adopted for rejecting the Paper Duties Bill sent up to that
house. The hon. and learned gentleman talked of the repeal
of the paper duties as a measure of doubtful policy, but he
was not a member of that house last session when the bill
was fought in all its stages, and then went up to the other
house by a majority which I will admit was not a large one.
(Conservative cheers.) The question was now fully debated
and a division taken upon it in the course of the last 10
days, and the house preferred the abolition of that duty to
a diminution of the duty upon tea. (Hear, hear.) In the
last session I differed from many among those with whom
I sit as to the right of the House of Lords to exercise the
power of rejecting the Paper Duties Bill; and in the com-
mittee upstairs, as the printed proceedinge will show, I dif-
fered from my right hon. friend the Chancellor of the Ex-
chequer, and from my noble friend with whom I have so
long acted on great constitutional questions I differed
from them with great regret ; but still my opinion was, on
looking at the precedents impartially, that the House of
Lords had exercised a power inherent in them, and which
could not be denied, in their rejection of the Paper Duties
Bill. (Hear, hear.) I say it was the exercise of a right,
but at the same time the policy of exercising that right was
doubtful, and it was the exercise of an extreme right. Ido
not think the hon. and learned gentleman can produce a pre-
cedent in which the House of Lords ever before rejected a sup-
ply bill on purely financial grounds. I believe the act of the
House of Lords last session, whatever their right might be,
was the exercise of an extreme right unprecedented in our
constitutional history. (Cheers.) But, entertaining this
opinion, I am bound to add my own =elusions on the
course adopted by the Government, and I think that course
is sustained by usage, and under circumstances quite right
in policy, and one which the house ought to adopt, by the
second reading of this bill, the repeal of the duties proposed
by the Government in one bill. (Cheers.) The learned
gentleman said ho should be astonished if an instance could
be produced where the imposition and remission of tax, s
were placed in one bill.
Mr. MACDONOGII explained that what he meant was,
he should be astonished if a precedent could be found of a
bill rejected by the House of Lords, and then repassed
by this house in a combined bill, and sent up again to the
ether house. (Hear, hear.)
Sir J. GRAHAM—My answer to that is that since the
Revolution the Lords have never rejected a bill of this
nature. (Cheers.) It was a novel eourse which the House
of Lords pursued ; and it shows me that the time has ar-
rived when the Commons ought to pursue one course, viz.,
to refer to ancient practice, to be traced from the earliest
times and followed up almost to the present period. (Hear,
hear.) I will not go at length into the precedents, still, as
to the right and usage of the Commons to combine in one
bill the larger portion of the budget for the year, and to
combine in it the imposition and remission of taxes, there
can be no doubt that it has existed from the Revolution
downwards, and has been sustained by usage and consti-
tutional authority. (Cheers.) I will only instance the
case of 1787, consequent upon the French treaty. In that
year a resolution was adopted by the house, and subses
quently an act was passed for repealing several duties of
customs and excise, and for granting other duties in lieu
thereof. (Hear, hear.) That act combined both the re-
pealing of duties and the granting of other duties in lieu
thereof. There were schedules of 60 quarto pages, based
upon 2,537 resolutions, the work of Mr. Pitt, recom-
mended by Mr. Pitt, carried by Mr. Pitt, and a motion
was made in the Commons to divide the bill into two
parts, but that motion was, after full debate, rejected.
(Hear, hear.) In the House of Lords an objection was
taken that their independence was invaded by such a com-
bination of multifarious matter in one bill, but the argu-
ments against the bill were resisted, and it was carried by
the Lords upon a division. This was a bill which enacted
and repealed taxes. (Cheers.) Well, then, what was the
course adopted at the time of the union, in 1800, and again
on the authority of Mr. Pitt. In the article, of the Act of
Union there were two schedules, extending to seven quarto
pages, and they combined both remission of taxes and coun-
tervailing duties, which were as extensive and important as
those which I have described. To come to a later period the
hon. and learned gentleman will find that in 1808—he dwelt,
I think, very much upon the precedent of 1807—but in 1808,
by the 48th Geo. 111 , c. 2, there was an enactment repeal-
ing duties, continuing duties, and re-enacting duties • not,
therefore, the double enactment of this
session, sion, but the
triple enactment of repealing, cone• •
mixing, and re-enacting
(Cheers.) The bill included sugar, malt, tobacco, and snub,
and the duties upon offices and pensions, and it went on to
and after Is. respectively on offices,
repeal 6d and
g and continuing other duties, it re-enacted 6d and ls.
respectively on certain other offices for the year 1808.
That course was in strict accordance with precedent and
the course now adopted by Government, and thatbill, Be
various in its operations for one year, was continued from
year to year till 1822. In that year a most important
change took place, viz , the duty upon malt was made
perpetual, but the duties upon sugar, tobacco, and snuff,
and other things, from 1822-25, were annually renewed
in one bill, and he wished the house to mark
that it was by making a tax perpetual that the
house had lost a constitutional check upon the House of
Lords, but which the House of Commons ought never
to have surrendered. (Hear, hear.) In 1826 the duties
on tobacco and snuff were transferred from the excise
to the customs, and then they were made perpetual.
From 1827 to 1834 the duties upon auger, and offices, and
personal estates were annually renewed in one bill. From
1834 to 1836 they were continued in separate acts, but only
for two years, and then in 1836 the duties upon offices and
pensions were wade perpetual. There remained only the
sugar duties, and from 13'-3'5 to 1846 those duties were con-
tinued from year to year in one bill. Just before Sir R. Peel
left office it 114 d been decided by his administration that, for
the sake of those interested in raising sugar, the uncer-
tainty which existed should cease, and the duties were then
made perpetual. That was the intention of Sir R. Peel when
he resigned office, and it became the duty of the noble lord
the Secretary for Poreiam Affairs (Lord I. Rn'soll), who
succeeded him, te
give effect to that intention. The effect of
not leaeing the large duties at the disposal of the House of
Commons wan not •nforeseen by Sir B. Feel, and lir.
Goulburn declared
having been made perPetiid
tetalh—o
thatother large
necessary—the
e dutiessugar duties
l
in amount shoo.] berivoted yearly ; but from that time to
this the pre:;aution trey nntbeen taken. I should not desire
any interference with t'ae rights of the House of Lords. I
should earnestly deprecate it; and if a course were taken
by the Government to coerce the other house, I should not
support it ; 1;-at I believe the noble lord at the head of the
Government onlyde3ires to determine the diesenion which
?as °slated, and I believe that course to be correct sad juice