The Sun.
London, England, 1861-05-28 00:00:00

temperament of the Finance Minister for the time
being. If he should be of a sanguine disposition, every-
thing would go well. Parliament would be sure of a sur-
plus, and it might remit taxes. If, on the other hand, he
should be of a desponding turn of mind, the house might
expect a deficit and proceed to lay on increased taxation.
(Hear, hear.) In the course of these debates the house had
been more than once invited to observe the great change of
circumstances which had taken place since the Budget was
introduced—the rapid march of events on the other side of
the Atlantic, and the gloom which was gathering and
threatening every day on our commercial prospects. Our
relations with America were now so intimate that it was
absolutely impossible for American trade to be paralysed
without the most serious consequences to England. These
consequences, he was afraid, were already falling heavily
upon us. The prospect of a short supply of cotton was
already most alarming. No one could tell what six months
hence the state of our manufacturing population might be.
(Hear.) Too much evidence had reached him—all who
were acquainted with the manufacturing districts knew—
that the prospect of diminished employment, and conse-
quently of diminished consumption, was already sufficiently
proved and acknowledged to do away with all hope of that
small surplus on which the Chancellor of the Exchequer
had so confidently reckoned. (Hear, hear.) A prudent
Chancellor of the Exchequer might now reconsider his
position. Six weeks ago, when the Budget was introduced,
affairs in America were threatening ; but then we all hoped
for the hest. Now those dangers had broken out into calami-
tous events, and we might prepare for the worst. This
Budget, made for fine weather, must necessarily be rent in
pieces by such a storm, and it could be no discredit to the
Chancellor of the Exchequer to admit that he had been a
second time beaten by events over which he could not pos-
sibly exercise any control. (Hear.) If he persisted in the
proposal now before the house, he would be acting in the
teeth of the real opinion both of that house and of the coun-
try—(hear, hear)—and exposing himself to the charge of
rash and wilful imprudence, and, unless every probability
was falsified, to future condemnation and reproach. (Hear,
hear.) On the other hand, in consequence of the new cir-
cumstances which had come upon us, he might yet retreat
with dignity and honour, and among all reasonable men
he would gain both popularity and respect by so doing.
(Hear, hear.) But that was not the only warning which
might be drawn from passing events in America. We were
now witnessing the bursting of that great Republican bub-
ble which had been so often held up as a model on which
to recast our own English Constitution—(hear, hear)—and
the first lesson which these events ought to impress upon
any English minister or statesman was the duty of preserv-
ing and strengthening that which had heretofore constituted
the great distinction between the safe, rational, and I em-
pered liberties of England and the wild and unreflecting
excesses of mob rule which had too often desecrated free •
dom and outraged humanity in America. (Cheers.) The
House of Commons, to which they were all proud to belong,
and whose privileges it was their duty to uphold, did not
derive its strength, its value, or its greatness from any in-
herent powers of its own, but rather from that association
in dignity and in functions with those other great authori-
ties of the State with which it was so identified in character,
in interests, and in responsibility that nothing could impair
the honour of one, whether of the Commons, or of the
Lords, or of the Crown, without detriment to all three.
(Hear, hear.) Each of these great estates, therefore,
was bound to regard the privileges and the dignity of
the other, as inseparable from its own. Into the
second question raised, the constitutional question, on
which exception had been taken to the form of the present
8.11, he would not then presume to enter. He was quite
ready to admit, for the sake of argument, that it might
be a great imi rovement in their practice in future years to
combine the whole of the financial measures for the year in
one bill. (Hear, hear.) He would assume that. that had
been proved. He would also, for the sake of argument,
assume, what of course the Government anticipated, that
the repeal of the Paper Duty would pass the House of
Commons. Then would remain the question, how they
could best combine the double object of carrying the repeal
of the Paper Duty in the Lords, and embodying in future
years the whole of the financial scheme of the Commons in
one bill. He thought the safest, and certainly the most
dignified course, for the House of Commons to pursue
would be to confine itself on this occasion to precisely the
same course as it adopted last year. (Cheers.) They might
say to the Lords,—" You rejected our Paper Duty Bill
last year; and we cannot deny that the country approved
what you did, because, financially, yon proved to be right ;
but that occurrence has convinced us of the necessity of
taking some means of avoiding all danger of future col-
lision; therefore we will in future embody all our financial
scheme in one bill. 'We might do this on the present
occasion, but we refrain from doing so because our motives
might be misinterpreted." It might seem discourteous to
attempt to coerce the Lords into what they refused to do
la t year; or it might be attributed to some other motive.
To avoid all such unjust and degrading imputations they
could send up the Paper Duty Bill to the Lords in its old
form, reserving to themselves the right to adopt the new
practice next year, when the object could be achieved with-
out danger of their motives being misinterpreted. (Hear,
hoar.) That would be a smooth and safe course ; it would
give rise to no unpleasant remembrances of the past, and
imply no ungenerous distrust as to the future. (Hear,
hear.) It would cause no heat, no jealousy, no distur-
bance ; the differences that had divided the two houses on
this subject would be forgotten ; and the country—that
was in perfect good hum )ur with the House of Lords
(hear, hear), and did not desire to see any quarrel between
the houses—would view with satisfaction their harmonious
co-operation for giving effect to a measure that had at
length met with general acquiescence. (Hear, hear.)
That would be, indeed, what an hon. gentleman
in an earlier debate described as the " olive branch "
offered to the House of Lords. But what they were
now doing might rather be interpreted as a challenge.
(Hear, hear.) Was it wise, was it necessary ? All resolved
itself into this question of time, they might next year do
graciously what they were going out of their way to do un-
graciously in the present one. Many would condemn the
proceeding as ill-advised, some would consider it as petu-
lant, some as arrogant. If the Lords submitted it implied
their humiliation, if they resisted it would provoke a con-
flict. (Hear.) And he thought that that Miiiistir would be
a friend neither to the country nor the constitetion who
went out of his way needlessly and wantonly to compel the
House of Lords to choose between two such alternatives.
(Cheers.) For these reasons he should feel it his duty to
give his best support to the amendment, because this re-
newed attempt to repeal the paper duty on the faith of a
surplus that events would perhaps prove to be as illusory as
that of last year, was most unfair to the country thilt would
be called on to make good the deficiency by an increase in
the income-tax—(hear)—and because the time chosen to
make a change in their mode of legislation was connected
so unmistakeably with the proceedings of last year as to
impart to the measure a mean and petulant cha-
racter—(cheers)—that was alike ill-advised and unworthy
of the House of Commons ; that must prove embarrassing
to the House of Lords ; and he was quite certain would
never be agreeable to the country. (Cheers.)
Sir R. PEEL said—As this issue has been raised to-night
and though, as the hon.
i baronet opposite said, I am not
aware whether " the pear s ripe" or not ; still, considering
the question in a fair an I honest spirit, and not having
given any vote on it this year, I will, with the permission
of the house, offer a few observations on it. In considering
this question I wish to explain, if 1 do vote, how I qualify
it ; or, if I do not vote, to state my reasons for not giving it.
(Laughter.) I am not at all surprised at this prolonged dis-
cussion. An hon. gentleman who spoke from these benches
said that after 10 nights of discussion—perhaps more—he
thought the house lead had enough of it. The Prime Mi-
nister himself said the other night ho was really quite sur-
prised at this continued discussion. Ho understood it was
not intended to dispute that part of the Budget connected
with the income-tax, that it was not intended to revive the
subject of the tea duty, and there was no intention of reject-
ing the paper duty. He said ho considered these matters as
disposed of and decided by the resolutions as matters
of course. The noblolord has often availed himself of the
kind assistance of the Opposition, to stem and curb the
exuberant spirit of his own partisans—(laughter)—and I
hope, under similar circumstances, he will never find the
loyal support of the Opposition wanting. (Cheers and
laughter.) But it is not oar fault if, after 'Whitsuntide, and
close on the month of June, we arc still discussing this
question. We might have had this discussion much earlier
if the Chancellor of the Exchequer had desired it. I there-
fore think the noble lord was accidentally led into an error
when he said all discussion had practically closed. I should
not have risen to speak to the question to-night had it not
been for a statement made by the noble lord the member
for the city of London, who said he believed this discussion
was carried on merely for the purpose of injuring the poli-
tical reputation of the Chancellor of the Exchequer. A
more unfounded observation never came from the noble lord,
though we know his habit of making use of these clap-traps
occasionally—(laughter)—for the purpose of gaining " po-
litical capital." (Laughter.) I, for one, in discussing the
question now, have not the least idea of throwing any slur
on the political character of the Chancellor of the Exche-
quer. I wish to discuss the subject like any other indepen-
dent member of the house, and I believe the right hon. gen-
tleman is quite capable of defending himself. If I thought
the discuseion was carried on on the ground the noble lard
supposed ; if I thought the poisoned arrow of personal
malice was directed against the right hon. gentleman, I for
one would t the my stand by him. (Cheers.) Like the
lion, baronet who has just sat down, I do not intend to
enter on the constitutional part of the question. Thank
God ! we have got rid of that, and got to the practical
part of the subject—that part that affects the interests of
the people and the country. The constitutional pcint has
been most ably treated by hon. gentlemen competent
to do it; among others by my right hon. friend,
whom I
was happy to hear addressing the house with so
much vigour—the reverend Conservative of Carlisle.
(Cheers, and laughter.) He treated that point in
such an able manner that I cannot understand how any one
can entertain any doubt on the constitutional part of the
subject. He said that, looking carefully and impartially at
the precedents, the Lords had 'a
constitutional right to take
the course they adopted. I thoroughly concur with that
opinion. And I should say, that any one who does not ad-
mit that the Lords were perfectly right must be very hard to
satisfy. But we will let all that go by. Allusion has been,