Commons Sitting of 25 August 1860

CONDUCT OF ABD-EL-KADER.

  QUESTION.
  MR. DARBY GRIFFITHsaid, he rose to put a Question which he had been prevented from putting the previous evening—namely, Whether Abd-el-Kader and a lady, sister of a Druse Chief, had saved many Christians' lives at Damascus at a period when all authority in the Lebanon was paralyzed?
  VISCOUNT PALMERSTON:Sir, it is quite true that Abd-el-Kader and a Druse Chief—I do not know that it was a lady—did save the lives of a very considerable number of Christians, and the Government have directed the Consul at that place to convey to Abd-el-Kader their thanks for and acknowledgments of the services which he had rendered to the Christian population.

  ADJOURNMENT OF THE HOUSE.—COMMITTEE UPON PUBLIC PETITIONS.
  VISCOUNT PALMERSTON: Sir, before proposing that this House at its rising do adjourn until Tuesday next, I take the opportunity of calling the attention of the House and the country to an instance of the diligent devotion of time and labour, and the very important public services rendered by hon. Members of this House, which from their nature do not attract the notice either of the House in general or the public at large. I am referring to the labours of the Committee upon Petitions, a Committee which was established in 1832, and has since then, laboriously and advantageously to the public service, continued to perform the functions devolving upon it. Previous to that time there was no arrangement in regard to the printing of petitions,
  1816
  and it chiefly depended upon the Motion of the hon. Member who presented a petition whether it should be printed or not. In 1832 a Committee was appointed, and has continuously been appointed since, upon which has devolved the task of examining all the petitions that are presented, and of making from them a selection of those which, from the importance of the matter to which they refer, or the importance of the parties from whom they proceed, they think most deserving of being brought to the special notice of the House, by being printed and made a part of and circulated with the Votes. This Session has been one in which this Committee has had great and peculiar labours to perform. The average number of petitions presented in each year during the five years preceding 1859 was 8,676, and the average aggregate number of signatures to these petitions was 1,074,000. The number of petitions presented in the Session now about to terminate is 24,264, and the House will judge of the additional labour in reading and considering that increased number which has devolved on the Committee. The total number of signatures, although not yet accurately ascertained, is believed to exceed 3,000,000. The Committee have made fifty-four Reports during the course of the Session. The number of petitions presented has been larger this Session than in any year since 1832, excepting the single year of 1843. Then again, as to the number of petitions which have been selected for printing, the average number of the last five years was 910, but this Session 1,587 have been thus selected. The House will perceive from these facts the vast amount of business which this Committee beneficially and gratuitously undertakes to perform, and the extent of the service which they render, not only to this House but to the petitioners, whose desires and suggestions are brought by them in a more distinct manner under the consideration of the House. It is only fair to the Committee that I should mention their names, because, although they are well known to those of this House who take an interest in these subjects, yet they are not known to the public at large. The chairman is Mr. Gregson, the hon. Member for Lancaster, who has been most indefatigable in his attendance. The other Members are Mr. Carter, Mr. Bruce, Mr. Alderman Cubitt, Mr. Davison, Mr. Dillwyn, Mr. Forster (who also takes an active and important share in the private business of the

  1817
  House), Mr. Gard, Captain Gray, Mr. Hunt, Mr. Miller, Mr. Hastings Russell, Mr. Abel Smith, Mr. Stanley, and Mr. Walter Talbot. I think it is only right that I should take this opportunity of mentioning the amount of labour undertaken and performed by this Committee, and the country will be able to judge from that statement how much business, important and interesting to the public, is performed by Members of the House which forms no part of the debates that take place in this House, and how much service is rendered by hon. Members who have not the satisfaction of knowing that the manner in which they perform public duties will from day to day be brought under the notice of the public. The noble Lord concluded by moving that the House at its rising do adjourn until Tuesday next.
  MR. GREGSONsaid, ha begged leave to express his grateful acknowledgments to the noble Lord for the kind notice of the labours of the Public Petitions Committee, over which he (Mr. Gregson) had the honour to preside. His success was entirely owing to the zealous and cordial co-operation of the other Members of that Committee, and to the services of a very efficient clerk (Mr. Bull). To receive the public thanks of the first Minister was a great honour, which the Committee highly appreciated. If he had diligently discharged his duty, he had only imitated the example of the noble Lord, who was in his place at all hours, day and night; and he would further only express a hope that the noble Lord might be permitted to prolong his days to the advantage of the public service and his own satisfaction as the prosperous and popular leader of that House.

  PROPOSED FRENCH WORKS ON LAKE LEMAN.—OBSERVATIONS.
  MR. BAILLIE COCHRANEsaid, that an extract from the Moniteur had appeared in the leading journals of that morning, which bore in a most remarkable manner upon the discussion which took place in the House on the previous night on Foreign Affairs. The paragraph was to this effect:—
  "The Moniteur contains a decree ordering the establishment of a port at the city of Thonon, on Lake Leman, and the improvement of the already existing port of Evian, on the same lake, as works of public utility."
  The remarks on the previous evening of
  1818
  the noble Lord at the head of the Government with respect to the conduct both of the Emperor of the French and the King of Sardinia in regard to Savoy and Nice, were worthy his distinguished position, and would elicit the sympathy of the whole country. He had understood the noble Lord to say that up to the present time the Treaty of Turin was not acknowledged generally by the Powers of Europe, and that it was not competent for the King of Sardinia to cede, and the Emperor of the French to accept, the neutralized provinces, and he must say that the determined and eloquent manner in which the noble Lord expressed his opinion of that transaction was worthy the character and dignity of this country. He also understood the noble Lord the Secretary of State to state, on a former occasion, that Europe could not quietly look on and see those neutralized provinces taken possession of—
  MR. SPEAKER: The hon. Member must confine his remarks to the question he intends to ask, and must not refer to a past debate.
  MR. BAILLIE COCHRANEsaid, he would merely ask the noble Lord whether his attention had been directed to the important notice in the Moniteur? If France had actually occupied the neutralized provinces, and, in fact, the whole of one side of the Lake of Geneva, it seemed to him a perfect absurdity after that to talk of a conference with regard to the annexation of Savoy and Nice to France. That annexation was not only un fait accompli; there must be permanent occupation when the French Government began to speak of improving harbours in the Lake of Geneva. He wished to know whether the noble Lord had received any official information of such a proceeding on the part of the French Government?
  VISCOUNT PALMERSTON: I have only seen what the hon. Gentleman has seen—the statement in the newspapers to which he has referred. I did not state last night that the King of Sardinia was not competent to transfer, or the Emperor of the French to accept the transfer of, Savoy; but I said it was not competent for either or both to make the transfer, if by that transfer the neutralized portion of Savoy was to be free from the conditions imposed on Sardinia by treaty, to which treaty France herself was a party. The Treaty of Turin has not been acknowledged by other Governments, and therefore does not form part of the recognized law of Europe.

  1819
  I should mention, however, that the French Government has always contended that the completion of the cession, after the Treaty of Turin, depended on two events; one was the vote of the population of the country to be ceded, the other was the sanction of the Legislature of Sardinia. Both of these events have taken place. How the vote of the people of Savoy was obtained it is not for me to say. The sanction of the Chambers at Turin was naturally to be expected, because when the Government had made the cession by a treaty which had been ratified by the two parties, it was not to be supposed that the Chambers at Turin would refuse their sanction.

DEAN OF YORK'S SALARY.

  OBSERVATIONS.
  MR. CRAUFURDsaid, he rose to call attention to the correspondence relative to the Deanery of York recently laid upon the Table of the House, and to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what course Her Majesty's Government intend to adopt in the matter of the proposed increase of the Salary to that Deanery. From the correspondence before the House it appeared that very early in the history of the question reference had been made to the law officers of the Crown, both of the late and present Governments, as to the powers of the Ecclesiastical Commissioners, and the opinions both of Sir Richard Bethell and Sir FitzRoy Kelly were adverse to the course which the Commission ultimately took with regard to the salary of the Dean of York. The Estates Commissioners had given it as their decision that the salary of the Dean should be £1,000 a year; but at the Board of the Ecclesiastical Commission long and repeated discussions took place on the subject. At length the Board came to a very extraordinary resolution, in which, after stating the salaries of the*Deans of Salisbury and Wells, the income of the Dean of York was left blank. Matters were left in this singular position with a view, probably, to a compromise at some future time; but the Estates Commissioners afterwards repeated their recommendation that the salary given to the Dean of York should be £1,000 per annum. Eventually the Report of the Estates Committee was confirmed by a Resolution of the Board, and one would have thought that here the matter would have ended. But a party at the Board were not satisfied, and at the very same
  1820
  meeting a Motion was made by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for the University of Cambridge (Mr. Walpole) to appoint a Committee to inquire into the arrangements with regard to the deaneries of cathedral churches. This was agreed to, and was evidently an attempt to overset the Resolution of the Board. The secretary wrote to the Dean of York, mentioning the appointment of the Committee and expressing a hope on the part of the Commissioners that he would not object to a little further delay in the settlement of the question. The Committee met, and came to a resolution recommending that an application should be made to the Government to take steps to raise the salary of the Dean of York to a level with that of the other Metropolitan Deans. A deputation subsequently waited on the Secretary for the Home Department, and it appeared from a minute of the Board that they had explained to him the views of the Committee, and submitted a scheme by which it was proposed to raise the Dean's salary to £2,000. At a Board meeting held on the 1st of February last the scheme was approved, and transmitted to the Clerk of Her Majesty's Council. It was not till three months after that an answer was obtained, and it was to be observed that during all this time the law officers of the Crown never changed their views, but expressed their entire disapproval of the course that had been taken. The sanction of the Council was ultimately given to the scheme, and thus was consummated this extraordinary proceeding. He thought it was high time that some change took place in the constitution of the Ecclesiastical Commission, leaving to Bishops to deal with matters of discipline, and placing the finances of the Church in the hands of the laity. The whole facts spoke so loudly and so flagrantly of the objectionable nature of the course the Commission had taken in the matter that he did not think it right to allow the Session to close without asking how the Government came to have given it their sanction.
  SIR GEORGE LEWIS: The Returns on the table give all the documentary evidence bearing on this question, and if any oral explanation with regard to the proceedings of the Commissioners is further required, it is desirable that that should be afforded by some member of the Commission who is more constantly in the habit of attending the meetings of that body than any member of the Government. I attend-

  1821
  ed a meeting of the Ecclesiastical Commission two days ago, when this matter was discussed, and I found that there was some difference of recollection as to the events that had taken place. It will he more convenient, therefore, that I should strictly confine myself to that which has come within my own experience. My share in the matter is extremely limited, and can be easily explained. In the course of last year, and soon after the formation of the present Government, a meeting of the Ecclesiastical Commissioners was held to discuss, as was announced, the question of the stipends of the Deans, and at that meeting the noble Lord at the head of the Government, the President of the Council, and myself as ex-officio members of the Board attended. It is now more than a year since the meeting took place, and I cannot undertake to give an accurate account of the debate. But there was a proposition for the augmentation of the stipends of certain Deans, and the debate, according to the best of my recollection, turned almost entirely upon the legal question—upon the power of the Ecclesiastical Commissioners to increase those stipends. The view taken by the members of the Government was that even the letter of the law was extremely doubtful, but that its spirit was clearly adverse to such a power; and that, if the increase of these stipends was contemplated, it was expedient that Parliament should be consulted. That was the line of argument adopted by the three members of the Government who were present. A division then took place; I cannot remember the precise nature of the question, but I presume it was upon the Motion recorded in this Minute. I think the question was carried by a majority of one, and that the three members of the Government voted in the minority. The next point to which I shall advert is the proceedings on the 8th of December last at a meeting which I happened to attend. The report of a previous meeting was read, and certainly I have no recollection of my taking any other part than merely assenting to the reception of the report. I do not remember concurring in it. I remember saying that if there was a recommendation that an application should be made to the Government upon a particular point, that was a resolution to which I should have no objection; but I also remarked that I must be understood as expressing no opinion upon the merits of the application. That is all that can
  1822
  be inferred from what passed to bear out the assertion that I assented to an increase of the salary. I was subsequently asked to receive the report adopted at the meeting at which I was present. The House will see that if I had assented to the report it would not have been necessary to have had any formal presentation to the Government. A day was appointed, and my noble Friend the President of the Council and myself were present at the Home Office when the report was received. I think the Bishop of London, the Bishop of Oxford, and Mr. Walpole presented it, and stated the grounds upon which they supported its prayer. The Lord President and myself listened to the arguments, but expressed no opinion, merely saying that the subject should receive the consideration of the Government. The House will observe that the chief portion of the report had for its object to recommend legislation upon the question of the stipends of the Deans, and what the Ecclesiastical Commissioners proposed was that a clause should be inserted in the Bill which I introduced and carried through the House this Session. I believe that I afterwards applied to Mr. Chalk, the Secretary of the Commission, to prepare a clause embodying the views of the Commissioners; but after considering that clause I did not think fit to introduce it in the Bill. With regard, therefore, to the first part of the application, the Government did not accede to it. Another part of the report related to the increase of the stipend of the Dean of York to a level with the stipends of the other Metropolitan Deaneries—that is to say, to £2,000 a year. The Commissioners prepared a scheme and sent it to the Council Office. I do not recollect that the scheme passed through the Home Office. Some examination of it took place, and it appears that the opinion of the law officers was taken by the President of the Council. I wish, however, to mention to the House that all schemes of any importance drawn up by the Ecclesiastical Commissioners are transmitted to the Council Office for confirmation by Her Majesty in Council, and that the ordinary course is to ascertain whether they contain anything contrary to law—whether they come within the legal powers of the Commissioners: and in the event of the inquiry being satisfactory in that respect, they are passed, I believe, as a matter of course. It is obvious that if those schemes are not in general passed as a matter of course, the Council Office would

  1823
  constitute themselves, in point of fact, the Ecclesiastical Commission; that if the Council Office attempted to go into every act of the Commissioners, they would be really taking the Commissioners' power into their own hands. Therefore the practice is to consult the law officers upon any question of law, and if the law is clear they pass the scheme by an Order in Council. That is the course which the Council Office usually adopt with regard to other Government departments. For instance, the Queen in Council is empowered to close burial-grounds upon the recommendation of the Home Secretary. The Secretary of State has certain inspectors. He makes up his mind upon their report whether the burial-grounds ought to be closed or not. He transmits a recommendation to the Council Office on his own responsibility, accompanying this with a draught, and, unless there is something illegal upon the face of the order, it is made an Order in Council. The same course is necessarily adopted as a part of the ordinary routine in the case of the Ecclesiastical Commissioners; and, as I said before, if it were not adopted the Council Office would really divest the Commissioners of their discretionary power, and would assume it themselves. In the present instance the opinion of the law officers was taken. They said that the legal power existed; but they also called attention to the fact that, although it was within the letter of the statute, they (bought the spirit of the Statute was against the exercise of such a power. At the time when this subject was under consideration my noble Friend the President of the Council was suffering under a severe domestic affliction. I believe that that circumstance prevented the consideration which the matter would otherwise have received, and that the officers of the department, not knowing that there was anything peculiar in the case, treated it in the ordinary course. That is the explanation I have to give. It was a special case, and ought to have been treated as a special case; and no doubt under ordinary circumstances it would have been so treated. Owing, however, to the unfortunate event to which I have adverted, the question was regarded as coming within the ordinary routine business of the Department. That is the origin of this scheme, so far as its sanction by an Order in Council is concerned. My special attention was not called to the matter until after the Council had given to the scheme the effect
  1824
  of law; and it did not then seem desirable that Her Majesty should be advised to rescind the order which had thus passed, even if it were in the power of the Executive Government to do so. So much for the share which the Executive Government have had in this transaction. With regard to the constitution of the Ecclesiastical Commission, and the manner in which its business is conducted, these are questions which may properly exercise the attention of Parliament in a future Session, but I think it is hardly desirable that I should proceed to discuss them on the present occasion. I understood that the object of my hon. Friend was to call attention to this particular case, and he will therefore forgive me if I go no further into the subject. I will only say that if the constitution of the Commission be examined, t think it will be found that there is no great difference between the number of ecclesiastical and of lay Commissioners. The uncertainty and the fluctuating nature of the attendance is a point of more importance. Members who attend on one day do not attend on another day; and if the matter is inquired into I think it will be found that at least as grave objections arise to the Commission on the ground of the fluctuating attendance as on the ground of the supposed preponderance of the ecclesiastical element. In the case of all those large and somewhat loosely constituted bodies the House will observe that, when certain irregularities are discovered in the working of the system, there is a tendency to make the Executive Government more responsible, and to treat them more as a department of the executive. I do not complain of that tendency, but the House must remember that whenever a Bill is introduced for the amendment of the Ecclesiastical Commission objections are raised against centralization, and it is said that all the powers are being brought into a small centre. The Government are mindful of these observations, and do not think it their duty, beyond what is strictly necessary, to interfere with the working of the Ecclesiastical Commission, which is more or less an independent body. I hope that the House will bear in mind that if they impose responsibility upon the Government they must also confer power, and that the bestowal of greater power will be a step in the direction of that centralization to which many hon. Gentlemen object. I mention these facts in order to show that the question is not so clear and decided as

  1825
  some hon. Members appear to think, but I do not conceive it necessary at present to enlarge further upon the subject.
  MR. BROWN WESTHEADreminded the House that two years previously he proposed to introduce a clause into a Bill before the House that the deanery of York should be raised 1o £2,000 a year. The Bill was. however, withdrawn; and he was surprised to learn that in the course of this year the Ecclesiastical Commission had raised the salary of the Dean to that amount. His Motion had reference to a future, and not to the present Dean, whose appointment was understood to be made on the understanding that his private fortune enabled him to dispense with any increase. He was glad to see that the Dean himself stood quite clear of any application for an augmentation of his salary. Having, however, examined the question, he was quite satisfied that it was within the power of the Commission to raise the salary of the Dean to £2,000 a year. It had never been reduced by Act of Parliament. Originally it was £2,400, and a share of the revenue of the Chapter, amounting to £700 per annum, in addition, so that the late Dean received upwards of £3,000 a year. The intention of the Act of Parliament was to reduce the incomes of all deaneries then exceeding £2,000 a year to that amount, and to raise the incomes of all deaneries below £1,000 a year to the amount of £1,000. Therefore he did not think it was competent to the Commissioners (regard being had to the 52nd section of the 3 & 4 Vict., c. 113, and to the spirit of the 11th section of the 5 & 6 Vict. c. 108) to reduce the income of the Dean of York below £2,000 per annum. As to the Dean himself, he felt it his duty to say that he had acted, not only in this question but in all others, in such a way as to secure the respect and admiration of all the district. He might not be a great man, but he was undoubtedly a good man; and his liberality had gone to this extent, that every farthing of the income given to him had already been expended in and about the cathedral of York. He had subscribed £2,000 for the purpose of enabling the choir to be competently kept up, and had given £1,000 towards the restoration of the chapter house, and £1,000 for the removal of some unsightly buildings in the neighbourhood of the cathedral. He held that the Dean of York, with a magnificent house and in a wealthy county, ought not to have less than £2,000 a year; it would, in fact, be
  1826
  cruelty to appoint a man with less, he believed that if the matter had been brought before the House of Commons the increase would have been sanctioned at once. He regretted it was not so. He thought the Ecclesiastical Commission had acted in a very unbusinesslike manner; as old Fuller says in his history, "All Church work is slow." But he hoped the House would not visit the faults of the Commission on the Dean, who had acted throughout in the most honourable manner. He felt it due to the Dean of York to say this, who was no political supporter of his, and was never likely to be, but who had secured the respect of all in the neighbourhood of York.

  THE MEDWAY—EXTENSION OF CHATHAM DOCKYARD.—QUESTION.
  SIR FREDERIC SMITHsaid, he wish-ed to ask the Secretary to the Admiralty, Whether the projects submitted to the Government in compliance with instructions from the late Lord Melvill, by the late Mr. Rennie, under date of the 27th day of August, 1814, and the 1st day of September, 1821, for the improvement of the navigation of the River Medway and for the extension of Chatham Dockyard, have been under the consideration of the present Board of Admiralty? The plan proposed by Mr. Rennie would have given to the Government 275 acres of floating surface available for the dockyard. At the present time there were only 42 acres of floating surface connected with the whole of the dockyards of this country, while France bad upwards of 375 acres. They were about to expend a million and a half to defend Chatham Dockyard, which was at present inferior in size to the dockyard of Portsmouth, and according to the plan of Mr. Rennie, the Government would be able, at an expense of only £600,000, by altering the course of the River Medway, to produce accommodation for 400 sail of ships of the largest class. This dockyard could be admirably fortified, was in an excellent position with respect to the North Sea, and from its inland locality, could not possibly be attacked by a naval force. There appeared to him to be every reason why Mr. Rennie's project or some plan analogous to it should be undertaken and completed as quickly as possible. If Chatham dockyard were duly extended, the dockyards at Woolwich and Deptford might be dispensed with, and a great saving to the public effected.
  MR. WHITBREADsaid, that in the absence of his noble Friend (Lord Clarence Paget), he had to state that the circumstances of the country had greatly changed since the Report referred to was presented to the Government nearly forty years ago, and it would not he found advisable now to proceed with the plan of Mr. Rennie, which, had been very carefully considered by the Admiralty. Among other objections to it in the present day would be the one, that it could not have the benefit of railway accommodation without making a railway to cross the wide part of the Med-way, and it would involve the necessity of having the steam outfitting basin a mile higher up the river than that which at present existed. The plan would be attended with very great expense, and would not be serviceable.

  EXCISE DUTIES ON PAPER.—HOUSE OF LORDS.—QUESTION.
  MR. WHITEsaid, he rose to ask Her Majesty's Government, Whether its attention has been called to the losses that have been incurred by Persons in the Paper Trade, in consequence of their having relied upon the finality of the Votes of the House of Commons in providing the Ways and Means for the Service of the Crown, and whether any mode could he entertained for compensating the parties in question; and also to ask whether, as a precedent has been established for the revision by the House of Lords of the provision annually made by this House for the Service of the Crown, it would be in future expedient to obtain the concurrence of the House of Lords before any proposal for the remission of Taxation is made to this House?
  MR. SPEAKER: If the second part of this notice had been brought to me while in the House, I should have asked the hon. Member whether it was his serious intention to put the question, or whether it was intended in an ironical sense; and if so, I should have informed him that to discuss any matter in that House in an ironical sense is unparliamentary and out of order.
  MR. WHITEsaid, he begged respectfully to state, that the last question was not put in an ironical sense, and more in sorrow than in anger, and under a sincere conviction that such was the state of matters now. And more than that, he would have appealed to the learned Gentleman at the Table (Mr. Erskine May), that in the
  1828
  next revised edition of his great work on the practice of Parliament, to state whether the conviction commonly entertained by the public out of doors was right or wrong. They believed that owing to the gigantic innovation by the House of Lords trade would be embarrassed, commerce impeded, and divers ill consequences result, if the present or any future Government should presume to bring forward any measure for the remission of taxation, unless they first consulted the House of Lords as to its expediency. And here he should say that he was not going to re-argue the great question, which had been consecrated by the glorious eloquence of the Chancellor of the Exchequer, and rendered illustrious by the constitutional wisdom of the noble Lord the Member for the City of London. But he appeared there to put those questions in sober seriousness, because a large interest had suffered by the course taken by the House of Commons. He much regretted that the constituents whom he represented did not belong to the privileged classes. The paper makers, by the number of petitions presented to the House, showed how much they had been aggrieved. Had they been peers, proctors, or lawyers, he was quite sure that compensation, and ample compensation, for losses would have been awarded to them. The House was aware that, according to constitutional usage, they had a right to believe that a Money Bill which had passed the House of Commons, but was subsequently thrown out by the House of Lords, would have become law; and, on the strength of that belief, they went to vast expense, and hence had suffered great loss from the non-fulfilment of their righteous expectations. Although it was not a very agreeable thing to be addressing a moribund Parliament, where only about a dozen Members were present, he could not help recording his opinion that they must regard for the future as a vulgar error that taxation was co-ordinate with representation. That privilege no longer existed. They were now paying a tax on the sole authority of the House of Lords. The noble Lord the leader of the Opposition in "another place" had proclaimed it as his mission to stem the tide of democracy. He had done more. He had made an encroachment on the privileges of that House which were held in trust for the good of the people. It was really a matter of great public concern to know if measures should be taken in any future Parliament that this interference

  1829
  with trade resulting from the course of j the House of Lords should be voided, and hence it was that he ventured to put the questions with which he should conclude, only adding that he thought this Parliament would be ever memorable in the annals of our country for the cowardly abandonment of its privileges, and the profligate and gigantic expenditure which it had authorized. The hon. Gentleman concluded by putting the Questions.
  MR. EDWIN JAMESmust say that he did not concur in the observations of the hon. Gentleman. He was aware that the hon. Gentleman felt strongly on this question, and also that there was on the part of the public a strong and jealous feeling on the subject; but he could not agree that any precedent had been set for the interference of the Lords in taxation, for the privileges of the House of Commons were protected by the Resolutions moved by the noble Lord at the head of the Government, which, though he (Mr. James) did not think they were quite sufficiently demonstrative of the feelings of the House, yet they did record in a dignified way the protest of this House against the encroachment. Then it was only the other evening that the question of privilege was raised in the matter of the Divorce Court, when the House, had every reason to be satisfied with the sound, deliberate, and constitutional judgment which the Speaker had pronounced in defence of their privileges. He might also allude to what took place in "another place" last evening, when the Lord Chancellor, referring to that Bill, declared in the most emphatic and dignified language that there was no intention to encroach on the privileges of the Commons. Under these circumstances, he thought his hon. Friend ought to rest satisfied with what the House of Commons had already done.
  SIR GEORGE LEWIS:—The House will not expect me even to offer any excuse for not reviving the general subject of the paper duty, and the position of the House of Lords with reference to that question. I shall therefore confine myself as closely as possible to the points upon which the hon. Gentleman has made his interrogatories. As to the statement that there is a defect of legal power for the collection of the present paper duty, I shall only say that, whatever difference there may have been between the two branches of the Legislature respecting the repealing power, the duty is collected now under an Act of
  1830
  Parliament, which in a former year passed both Houses and received the Royal Assent; and, therefore, as far as the legal question is concerned, there is precisely the same authority for raising the paper duty as for levying and collecting any other branch of the Queen's taxes. No legal difficulty, therefore, can arise on the subject. Then the hon. Gentleman said that this Parliament had distinguished itself by the largo votes which it had made to defray expenditure; and his inference seemed to be that it was unreasonable to retain a certain branch of revenue. Now, if the grants for expenditure have been profuse, it seems hardly a logical inference that it is desirable to diminish our means of payment. With regard to the compensation to paper manufacturers which he suggests, the hon. Gentleman will no doubt remember that the measure for the remission of the Customs' duty on paper, which passed this House after being very fully debated, and which was assented to by the other House, for the most part proceeded on the assumption that the Excise duty inflicted scarcely any appreciable loss on the paper trade. If that assumption be correct, and our legislation certainly proceeded upon it, it can hardly be said that the paper manufacturers are able to substantiate any claim for compensation. I am not aware that any such claim has been made upon the Treasury; and no vote having beenag reed to by this House for such compensation, the Treasury would be of course unable to recognize a claim of this kind. But I will go further, and say that I am aware of no grounds upon which a claim for compensation can be substantiated. With regard to the second question of the hon. Member, I confess that I agree with the hon. and learned Gentleman (Mr. E. James) that no precedent for a change of system has been established by what has taken place during the Session. I have always understood that those who opposed the Paper Duty Abolition Bill did so on the ground that an extraordinary remedy was necessary to meet an extraordinary evil. I remember hearing a remark made by a person supposed to be favourable to the view of the House of Lords, that though be considered the course taken by the Lords was defensible as medicine, it could not he justified as daily food. That opinion, I believe, represents correctly the view taken by those who approved the act of the House of Lords, and if it be correct, no precedent for a change of system has been esta-

  1831
  blished. However, if a change of system were likely to ensue, I do not see how it would be possible to resort to any such course as that indicated by the hon. Gentleman.
  SIR HENRY WILLOUGHBYsaid, he thought the House of Commons would be always ready to vindicate their privileges if they were really invaded by the Lords. The moral to be drawn from the existing state of the paper duty question was that the House of Commons should not hastily embark in any extensive reduction of taxation until it was aware of the expenditure which would he required. The only effect of the hasty course adopted was that the revenue had sustained the loss of probably not less than a quarter of a million, which showed that the House had been guilty of great imprudence in repealing this tax.
  Motion agreed to.
  House at rising to adjourn till Tuesday.
  House adjourned at half after Two o'clock till Tuesday.