§ SIR JOHN TRELAWNYsaid, he rose to move
That this House, in consequence of the House of Lords having interfered with the arrangement of Supplies for the year, recommended by Her Majesty's advisers, and by such interference assumed responsibility for the conduct of finance, postpones the consideration of further proposals by the Ministers of the Crown towards meeting public expenses until the period when the authority of the House of Commons shall have been asserted, and the Bill for the repeal of the Excise on Paper shall have become law.
§ MR. SPEAKERstated that, one Amendment upon the Motion for going into Committee of Supply having been put and negatived, it would be contrary to the rules of the House to propose another.
§ SIR JOHN TRELAWNYsaid, he understood that the forms of the House would not allow of a second Motion being made on the proposal to go into Committee; but he wished to call attention to the subject of his intended Motion. He had refused to have anything to do with the Resolutions which the Government proposed to the House on the conduct of the Peers, believing them to be unworthy of the occasion. He held it to be the duty of the House not to be satisfied with mere words, but to take some active step beyond the passing of an abstract Resolution, which did not meet the case. In his opinion, the House had placed itself in a very degraded position, and lowered its authority in the eyes of the country. Take the case of a gentleman whose estate was claimed by a person having no legal title would not the proper course for him to adopt be to defend his rights in a Court of Justice? But suppose he called his tenantry together, and then proposed and carried a resolution that his title was perfectly good, and that there was no danger in future of his position being attacked, and that if it should be he had the means of defeating the aggression. What would be thought of this? Would not the credit of his title sink in the estimation of his neighbours? But such was the position in which the House of Commons stood. Resolutions had been passed which were totally unnecessary, unless something had taken place which was deserving of censure; and if so, other steps were equally called for. It was not a question as to whether the paper duties was the best tax to repeal—and he frankly admitted that he was himself disposed to concur with those who thought that the abolition of the tea and sugar duties would have been more satisfactory to the largest number of people; but the House of Commons thought that on various accounts it was best that the paper tax should be taken off at this time, and consequently the noble individuals in "another place" were bound, according to constitutional usages, to accept the conclusion at which the Commons had arrived. Suppose an hon. Member of that House were the owner of a ship, to which he appointed a captain, and that in the course of its voyage it got near the rocks 1808 and in the midst of dangers, and that the captain was about to take in a sail when the owner ordered it to remain set, would not the owner from that moment have the charge of the vessel, and be responsible for its fate? That was precisely the position which noble Lords had taken in reference to one of the provisions of the Budget; and they were, therefore, responsible for the whole. Consequently, it would seem that in future the Lords were to have a control over the finances of the country. If so, he believed the House had a good case for postponing the consideration of Supply until the authority of the Commons should have been asserted, and the Bill for the repeal of the excise on paper should have become law. It was a good opportunity for warning the Lords that if they persisted in their present course of resisting popular measures passed by the Commons, the time would soon come when the people would discuss, in a different spirit than at present, the question of privilege, and it might become an important question whether we should not do well to substitute an elective for an hereditary peerage. Knowing, however, the value of the time of the House at that period of the Session, he would not now prolong his observations on the subject, which was, nevertheless, one of deep and urgent importance.