§ VISCOUNT PALMERSTONSir, in pursuance of the notice which I gave yesterday afternoon, I rise to move that a Committee be appointed to search the Journals of the two Houses of Parliament in order to ascertain and report on the practice of each House with regard to the several descriptions of Bills imposing or repealing taxes. I shall abstain from going into any further detail at the present moment, and I trust the House also will see the advantage of not entering into any discussion upon matters upon which it is intended the Committee should furnish us with information. I apprehend that it will be better if hon. Gentlemen, whatever their opinions may be, would have the goodness to defer stating those opinions until the Committee shall have made their Report. This step, under any view, precludes nothing, and pledges nothing. It is one which I think the House would take under the circumstances, and it certainly leaves the matter entirely open for consideration, with this difference only, that we shall then be in possession of facts with regard to which different and contradictory assertions may otherwise be made.
§
Motion made, and Question proposed,—
That a Select Committee be appointed to search the Journals of both Houses of Parliament in order to ascertain and report on the practice of each House with regard to the several descriptions of Bills imposing or repealing Taxes.
§ SIR JOHN PAKINGTONIt is, perhaps, hardly necessary to say that I have 1718 no intention, and I am not aware that any hon. Gentleman on this side of the House has the intention, to interpose any objection to the Motion of the noble Lord. On the contrary, after what has occurred I should have been surprised if the noble Lord had not taken that course. I agree that it would be premature on the present occasion to enter upon a discussion of the Motion or the circumstances that have induced him to make it. I heard with satisfaction from the noble Lord that no one in consenting to this Motion would be in the slightest degree fettered or compromised with regard to any course which it might be necessary to take upon the Report of the Committee. So far as my own vote is concerned I consent to the appointment of this Committee, and I do so with greater satisfaction on account of the assurance given by the noble Lord the other night, that it is not the intention of Her Majesty's Government that the appointment of the Committee should lead to any feeling of hostility between the two Houses of Parliament.
§ MR. EDWIN JAMESsaid, he regretted that he could not agree in the opinion of the right hon. Gentleman that it was not necessary to have some declaration from her Majesty's Government as to the course which they intended to pursue. He had waited, as a Member of that House, anxious with regard to a question which affected their dearest privileges, to learn from Her Majesty's Government the course they would adopt in consequence of that of which the House had now proper evidence—the rejection of the Bill for the repeal of the paper duty by the House of Lords. Any discussion the previous evening would have been premature, as the Report from the Journals of the other House had not then been received. But now that the House was formally in possession of the decision of the House of Lords respecting the Bill, all precedents justified them in taking some action on the subject. The Journals of the House of Commons told them, if they had writ their annals true, that they were in possession of abundant knowledge, and in a position to decide what course ought to be adopted. He had no desire to urge Her Majesty's Government to any premature step; but he thought that the country upon a question, in which it was deeply interested, and in which the dignity and honour of the House of Commons wore equally interested, had a right to know whether the Government had made 1719 up their minds to adopt any course in the matter. The established precedents justified him in saying that the matter was ripe for action on the part of that House. He believed the last case of the kind occurred in 1742. Hon. Members who were versed in Parliamentary history would have that case familiarly in their memory. It was a case in which a Committee of Inquiry was appointed upon the alleged corruption of Lord Orford, formerly Sir Robert Walpole. A Bill was sent up to the House of Lords to indemnify the witnesses who gave evidence before that Inquiry. The House of Lords rejected the Bill on the 26th of May. A Committee was appointed like that moved for by the noble Viscount, to search the Lords' Journals, and they ascertained the rejection of the Bill on the 26th of May, the same evening that it was thrown out. The House of Commons thereupon passed a Resolution the following day to the effect—
That the refusal of the House of Lords to concur in the indemnity necessary to carry on the Inquiry by the House of Commons is an obstruction to justice, and fatal to the liberties of the nation.It was, therefore, in his opinion, perfectly clear that as the House was now formally in possession of information as to the decision of the House of Lords, there was no necessity whatever for the appointment of a Committee to search for precedents; and he could not help thinking that such a course would lead to temporizing and delay, though he did not in the least impute that the Government desired such a result. He held that by precedent the House was now at liberty to act in this matter, and that, as the noble Lord at the head of the Government must, by the rejection of the Bill, be to some extent embarrassed in regard to the financial arrangements of the Session, it was due both to the interest which the House took in its invaluable privileges, and to the self-respect and dignity of the Government, that the noble Lord should announce what course the Government were prepared to follow on this question.
MR. DIGBY SEYMOURsaid, he had intended to address some observations to the House on this subject; but he felt that it would be disrespectful to the leader of the House if, after the appeal which he had made, he entered on the general question which was at issue. He would only say that he objected to the Committee now proposed, both on account of the terms of its appointment and of the manner in 1720 which it was composed. As to the terms of the Motion it proposed that the Committee should "ascertain and report upon the practice of each house with regard to the several descriptions of Bills imposing or repealing taxes." Now, he would submit that that language gave the Committee too much of the character of a roving commission. He believed that the practice of the other House as to Bills imposing or repealing taxes might be ascertained from such works as Mr. Hatsell's Precedents, and Mr. Erskine May's valuable work, without searching the Journals of Parliament. The simple question which had to be answered was, whether any precedent was to be found in the Journals of the House of Lords for the rejection of a Bill for the repeal of a tax under the same circumstances as the Paper Duty Repeal Bill. All that the Committee required to do was to ascertain whether any such precedent existed, leaving it to the House to say whether it applied to this particular question before them. According to the Motion of the noble Lord, the Committee might search all the Journals through and through, and yet conclude their labours without deciding whether there was any precedent whatever for what had just taken place. As to the composition of the Committee, he found upon it the names of four Cabinet Ministers, and the same number of Ex-Cabinet Ministers, but he regretted to see that it included the name of only one Gentleman sitting below the gangway—that of the hon. Member for Birmingham. There ought to be a larger infusion of the independent element in the Committee. He entertained no revolutionary views as to the other House, but he was anxious that this matter should be speedily and satisfactorily disposed of, and was satisfied that that end could only be attained by the appointment of a Committee in which the country had the fullest confidence. He thought that the legal profession ought to have been more largely represented in a Committee whose duty it would be to search for precedents, and balance minute points of difference or similarity. It was true that the hon. and learned Attorney General and Solicitor General were to be placed upon it, but he would suggest the addition of the names of the hon. Members for Plymouth (Mr. Collier), and Manchester (Mr. Bazley), as likely to give weight to the Committee.
§ MR. T. S. DUNCOMBEsaid, he differed from the two learned Gentlemen who 1721 had just spoken in the view he took of the question, and would beg leave to set them right in one respect. It was a mistake to say that the House of Lords bad rejected the Paper Duty Repeal Bill. It had done no such thing. The House of Lords had only postponed the second reading of the Bill for six months. That was, no doubt, held to be tantamount to the rejection of the Bill, and the House of Lords intended that it should be so received. But there was no reason why, if the House of Commons could defeat the stratagem of the House of Lords and maintain the dignity of their own body, they should not do so. They ought to take the House of Lords at their word. Every one was of opinion that the paper duty was a bad duty—at least every one I who spoke in the House of Lords took that view, and insisted only that this was not the moment to repeal it. Well, let the Government wait and see whether six months hence their Lordships might not discover that the proper moment had arrived. The Bill would be rejected when the Government, by prorogation of Parliament put an extinguisher on the Bill; but till then it stood merely postponed. He believed that before they were many days older they would find a very strong opinion expressed throughout the country against the rejection of the Bill; and if, when the business of the Session was over, the Government would advise Her Majesty not to prorogue Parliament, but to adjourn it from time to time, so that it might sit till November, the country might then be so circumstanced, the revenue might be in such a position, the people might express so emphatic an opinion, and put such a pressure on the Lords, that they might, after all, come to the conclusion that it was right and expedient to pass the Bill. A very large meeting of delegates from the Metropolis and different parts of the country had been held that day, and he was authorized to say that the Amendment he had to propose, and on which he was determined to take the sense of the House, met with their sanction, and would receive every support from them if the House had a mind to test the feeling of the country on this matter. The Amendment lie proposed was as follows:—
That this House having learned with deep regret that the further progress of a Bill passed by this House for the repeal of the Duty of Excise on Paper manufactured in the United Kingdom, has been postponed by the House of Lords for six months, it is the opinion of this House that when the state of public business permits, Parliament 1722 ought not then to adjourn beyond November next, whereby another opportunity will he afforded to the House of Lords of considering whether the said Bill may not be then advantageously agreed to.Nothing, he maintained, could be milder or more consistent with common sense than that. The hon, and learned Member for Marylebone (Mr. James) said that the object of the Motion in the House of Lords was to embarrass and hamper the Chancellor of the Exchequer, and to obstruct the financial arrangements he proposed; and hon. Gentlemen opposite gave their assent to that view by a smile and almost by a cheer. But the Chancellor of the Exchequer was really the last man who ought to complain of what had happened. Generally speaking, the Chancellor of the Exchequer had reason to complain only when any great deficit had been created which he had to supply; but in the present case a surplus had been thrust upon him which he did not require. He believed, however, that the House and the Government had a right to complain that when a financial scheme was sent up to the House of Lords, they did not, as they ought to have clone, take all or none of it. The noble Lord at the head of the Government proposed to go in search of precedents. He would not follow the noble Lord in that wild-goose chase. He maintained that no precedent whatever was applicable to the present day. They lived in rather extraordinary times. They had a scheme of finance, including a commercial treaty with a foreign Power, and the repeal of the paper duty was part and parcel of it. The House of Lords had no business to separate one part from another. Looking to the state of affairs abroad, could any man say that a Continental war did not hang as it were by a thread? Great principles were coming into collision—the principles of constitutional freedom and the despotism of autocrats. The Emperor of the French was the first to set the hall rolling in Italy, and he fervently hoped that Garibaldi would be enabled to complete in the south that which the Emperor bad so nobly commenced in the north. [Cries of "Question."] It was of importance who should he at the head of a country like England at such a moment. They must not have men who would play into the hands of the great autocrats of Europe. They must have men who would give a chance to constitutional freedom. No one could say whether to-morrow it would be peace or war, and it was of importance that the 1723 financial schemes of the Government should not he lightly trifled with, as it had been by the House of Lords. It was quite right, according to constitutional law that the House of Lords should have the power to put a veto upon Bills which proceeded from this House, even Bills which applied to finance. From time immemorial money Bills had been sent up to the House of Lords, and if that House had not the power to put a veto on them, the House of Commons might insert in those Bills clauses affecting the rights, properties, and liberties of the subject. If the Lords had not the power of putting a veto, the Commons might put in a clause to abolish the bench of Bishops themselves. But from time immemorial, where the Bill was confined to a money Bill, the House of Lords had never deemed it right to reject or meddle with that Bill, as they had done upon this occasion. The noble Lord was going in search of precedents. He cared for none. He wanted no precedent. He knew what the House of Commons ought to do. He felt from the beginning—and the end of it in the House of Lords convinced him that it was intended to insult this House. [cries of "No."] Insult, he repeated, was intended from the manner in which it was done. [Repeated cries of "No."] It was notorious to every man, woman, and child that when notice was given to postpone the Bill for six months by the Controller of the Exchequer, the late Prime Minister jumped up and said in effect, "Every foot which I can bring to bear shall assist to give that Bill a kick." It was a gratuitous avowal at the time, and he could consider it in no other light than an insult to this House. The people were beginning to look at in that point of view. [Derisive Cheers from the Opposition.] He said they were beginning to look at it in that point of view. For the moment the public took a pounds-shillings-and-pence view of the question, and thought the Lords were right to postpone this Bill; but they were now separating the two questions, and were beginning to consider the measure as it affects the right of taxation of the separation of which from the right of representation they were extremely jealous. They were beginning to look at it in that point of view, because they naturally said, "How is ever a tax to be repealed if this is quietly submitted to?" The House of Commons ought not quietly to submit to it. They owed a duty not 1724 only to themselves, but to those who would come after them, not to establish precedent of this sort. They ought to put on record their sentiments, and he believed that if the House would do him the honour to take his Motion they might even now come to an understanding with the Lords upon the subject, and avoid any collision. At all events, it would be satisfactory to the country, and would prove that this House was ready and willing to maintain those privileges and those rights which the Constitution had conferred on them. It was with that view that he begged leave to move the Amendment which he had read.
§
Amendment proposed,
To leave out from the word 'That' to the end of the Question, in order to add the words 'this House having learned with deep regret, that the further progress of a Bill passed by this House for "the repeal of the Duty of Excise on Paper manufactured in the United Kingdom," has been postponed by the House of Lords for six months, it is the opinion of this House that, when the state of the public business permits, Parliament ought not then to adjourn beyond November next, whereby another opportunity will be afforded to the House of Lords of considering whether the said Bill may not be then advantageously agreed to.'
—instead thereof:
§ Question proposed, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Question."
§ MR. WHALLEYsaid, he rose to second the Amendment, with the more readiness because it appeared to be a proposition which, reserving entire respect and deference to the House of Lords, attributed to them the best possible motives for the course which they had been pleased to adopt. The main argument used in that House in favour of postponing the second reading for six months was that the state of the revenue would within a few weeks or months be such as to render the tax absolutely necessary for the exigencies of the country. The only objection which could be fairly offered to the Amendment was that they might find themselves in November in the same position in which they now were. He had prepared a notice, which he intended to put upon the Votes, by which that difficulty would be obviated. He looked upon this not as a question between this House and the House of Lords, but between this House and Her Majesty's Ministers. He had voted 10d. in the pound income tax upon the distinct understanding that the paper duty was to be repealed, and he asked the Go- 1725 vernment how they could allow the House to separate with 10d. in the pound income tax and the paper duty not repealed, when it was a distinct understanding brought to the test of a division upon the Motion of the hon. Member for Somersetshire (Sir W. Miles) that the consideration for that amount of income tax was the repeal of the paper duty. The notice which he intended to place on the paper was this:—
That this House considers that Her Majesty's Ministers stand pledged to this House and to the country to carry out the financial arrangements submitted by the Government and adopted by this House, and that it is the duty of the Government to advise Her Majesty to take such measures as may be necessary for passing a Bill for the Repeal of the Paper Duty through the House of Lords during the present Session.'
§ MR. BRIGHTI have been sorry to observe, since this question has made its appearance before this House, that a few Members on the other side have been disposed to treat it as one of no importance. Now, if I were, unfortunately, a member of the party opposite, I hope I should he able to discover that there is something grave and important in this question, and in the position in which the House is placed with regard to it. I hope, also, that I should be able to dispossess my mind of any of those feelings which too often attend party triumphs, and which too often blind our eyes to the real consequences of the course we are taking. I presume that the noble Lord at the head of the Government and his Colleagues, who have a peculiar interest in the matter before us, do consider this a question of some moment; and I think the more it is brought before the House and discussed, the more the House will come to the same opinion. I agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Finsbury (Mr. T. Duncombe) in what he has said with respect to the growing opinion which is being manifested in the country with regard to it. Let hon. Gentlemen opposite bear in mind that never in the lifetime of the oldest Member of this House, or hardly in the lifetime of his father, has any great question arisen as to what may be termed the rights of the people through their representatives, or the rights of their representatives in this House. Generally men have assumed that certain things were irrevocably fixed; as, for example, that a man may travel in this country without a passport; or that a man's house cannot be broken into by the officers of the law without a warrant; or that if a man be apprehended he must be brought 1726 before some Judge or magistrate within a certain time, who may determine his case. These are questions which are fixed in the public mind, and men do not generally ask how they came to be fixed, but they take them as they take their daily bread, or their nightly sleep—as that which is natural and unchangeable in their condition. So with regard to this question of the administration of the finances of the country. Men have always understood, without being able to give chapter and verse for it any more than how it is they breathe, that the Chancellor of the Exchequer was an officer of the Government chosen by the Crown, and having the confidence of Parliament, especially of this House, for the purpose of arranging the finances of the country for the year, and they have always seen that, when the Chancellor of the Exchequer has brought his scheme before Parliament, and that scheme has received the assent of the House of Commons, it has invariably become law. Having seen that, and never having seen anything else, it is not to be wondered at that the great bulk of the people of this country have not instantly discovered, the very first day the Report of the division in the House of Lords went out, that there had been some serious infraction of the Constitution, and some great damage to the powers of this House, and to the liberties of those who pay taxes—taxes which are to be levied solely by the representatives of the people. And when at the same time there has been this unfortunate feature connected with this question, that the press, particularly the press of London, and that portion of it which is most ancient, which is the highest in price, and which has not undergone the revolution which is inevitably approaching the press—that the press of London, actuated, I will not say—by base motives, but actuated by alarms which we all can understand—has been anxious to cover the disaster which was attempted to be inflicted upon this House and the country, and has endeavoured to misrepresent the whole question to the nation. When we take this into our consideration, I say we may easily understand how it is that, within three or four days after the enactment of this great event, there has been no widespread expression of opinion throughout the length and breadth of the United Kingdom. But, judging from what I see in the provincial press—from private letters which I have received—from what is tak- 1727 ing place in London now—and in some of the largest towns in the kingdom—I am perfectly satisfied that there will be existing in a few days a wide and almost universal discontent at the course which has been taken. And let the House believe me, as I think they will, when I say that, in considering this question, I have not, at this moment, the slightest regard to the importance of the particular tax which it was proposed to repeal. If it had been proposed to levy an additional Excise upon paper, and if that Bill had gone up to the House of Lords, and it had been rejected there as this Bill has been, I confess that I believe I should have been one of those who would have resisted, so far as I was able to resist, with all those with whom I sit in this House, an interference of that kind on the part of the other House of Parliament. And though I acknowledge myself for many years to have had a warm and growing interest in the question of the abolition of the duty upon paper, yet since that division has taken place, the question of the tax itself has fallen, as it were, into utter insignificance in my sight, as compared with the far graver question which the course taken by the House of Lords has opened to the consideration of Parliament and the country. Now, passing from these observations, which may be considered general, to the point which is strictly before us, I am willing to admit, that there is something to be said—perhaps a great deal—as to the ordinary course of proceeding, and the mode by which the noble Lord at the head of the Government intends to proceed to-night. The noble Lord has proposed a Committee, and if the House will exclude my name from it, I should say it was impossible to select eighteen names more calculated. I think, to represent the solid judgment of this House in any matter that might be referred to them. At the same time, I think there is some force in what has been said by the hon. and learned Gentleman, the Member for Southampton (Mr. D. Seymour), that a name or two more might have been chosen from this quarter of the House; but I am willing to believe that, from whatsoever quarter of the House the names are chosen to act upon this Committee, so far as an accurate search for precedents, and an honest Report to this House goes-—there are no nineteen Members of this House who might not be entirely trusted to do what is just and right in this great matter. But I complain—and in this I 1728 agree to some extent with the hon. and learned Member—I complain of the vagueness of the reference under which the Committee will act. I think the noble Lord has laid himself open—I will not say to suspicion, for I am not anxious to cultivate such a feeling—but he has laid himself open to some doubt as to the earnestness of his concern when he proposes simply that the Committee should ascertain and Report upon the practice of each House with regard to several descriptions of Bills for imposing or repealing taxes. When I read those words this morning it occurred to me that I was very unlucky in being named upon this Committee, for I concluded that we should have in all probability to offer to the House, at least, a volume upon this grave subject. Now, if I bad had the drawing up of this Resolution, it should have been different—it should have been more effectual, and it should have tended to keep the Committee more exactly and minutely to the point which is before the House. In a wide order of reference like this, every Gentleman, who has been in the habit of sitting upon Committees, must feel that there is some danger that the real pith and point of this question may be lost sight of. It appears to me that what we have to inquire into is this.—We find that the House of Lords has increased the taxation of the country during the present financial year without the consent of the House of Commons. Now, that is a grievance, if there be a grievance of which the House of Commons has to complain; and, as this question is not a question of the paper duty, of this Government, or of this Session, or of that Opposition, but is a question for years, it may be for generations—or it it may be for centuries in England, I hope I may appeal to hon. Gentlemen opposite to discuss and consider it as if it were a question which did not affect any of their party objects during this Session, but one to which they ought to direct their minds with a calmness demanded only by the greatest question that can come before a national legislature. Let me for one moment observe that the noble Lord states in this Resolution that the Committee are to Report upon the practice of each House with regard to several descriptions of Bills imposing or repealing taxes. Now, there are two descriptions of money Bills, which some people fancy are only one, but which are still two and very distinct. There are Bills which in former times have been passed 1729 for the protection or fo the regulation of particular trades, and those Bills have had in them provisions imposing taxes on imports of one kind or other, not intended for the purpose of revenue, but intended for the higher and the chief object of the Bill, namely, the protection or the regulation of some particular trade or industry. Now, that is one description of Bill which may be called in a subordinate sense, a Money Bill; and there are Bills of that kind which, I take for granted, have been interfered with, in some cases have been altered, and, at least I presume, in some cases rejected by the other House of Parliament. But then comes that description of Bills in which the Bill now before us must be included—namely, a Bill for revenue purposes only, connected with the Ways and Means for the service of the Crown. Now, if I could have advised with regard to this Motion for this Committee, the reference would have been of a more distinct character, because I would have asked the Committee to ascertain whether the House of Lords has in a recent period—confine it, if you like, to the Revolution, though I believe it goes further back than that—has the House of Lords refused to give effect to any Bill passed by the Commons for the repeal of a tax which they no longer deemed necessary for the service of the Crown, and for which a substitute has been provided. I am told that in a great speech on this question in "another place" it has been asserted that no substitute has been provided for the loss of the duty on paper; and I have read in the newspapers that at a certain house in St. James's Square a Member of the other House of Parliament, of dominant influence there, apparently in discussing this matter with a large deputation, gave them to understand that he had never even so much as heard that a substitute had been talked of, or provided by the House of Commons for this paper duty. I cannot conceive of anything more unfortunate than that the finances of the country should be placed in the hands of a man so little observant of what is passing in this House, and who knows so little of what had been done by the great party in this House which acknowledges him as its leader. Certainly the hon. Member for Somersetshire (Sir W. Miles) must have felt very much astonished that the patriotic, though mistaken, efforts which he made received so little recognition at the hands of his leader. That hon. Gentleman moved this Resolution:— 1730
That as it appears that the repeal of the duty on paper will necessitate the addition of one penny in the pound to the income tax, it is the opinion of the House that such repeal is, under the circumstances, inexpedient.As far as I recollect the speeches delivered from that (the Opposition) side of the House, the whole discussion during one long night went upon this—not that the paper duty is a good duty in itself, because we all admit that it ought to be repealed. Nobody was more enthusiastic for its abolition hereafter than the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Buckinghamshire, and now nobody is more enthusiastic than the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Hertfordshire (Sir E. B. Lytton); you all admit the duty to be a bad one, but you say for the time, at all events, that you prefer the continuance of the bad duty, to the addition of 1d. in the pound to the income tax, which so grievously oppresses persons whose incomes are under £200 or £300 a year. That was the argument of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Buckinghamshire (Mr. Disraeli), and also of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Hertfordshire, and it was the argument of every speaker on the Opposition side of the House; and it was the precise point on which the House went to a division. And in a House of more than 440 Members it was decided by a majority of fifty-three, that the paper duty should be abolished, and in lieu of it, and to supply the void occasioned by its removal, one penny in the pound should be added to the income tax. Now, that being so, let us not be told that a noble Lord elsewhere was in ignorance of this question having been discussed and decided, or that the House of Commons has provided a substitute for that paper duty it determined to repeal. I think, therefore, that the question that should be put to the Committee is this:—"Has the House of Lords refused to give effect within recent times—within such a period as fixed by law of Parliament—to a Bill passed by the Commons for the repeal of a tax no longer deemed necessary fur the service of the Crown, and for which a substitute has been provided?" I object to the order of reference which has been proposed on these grounds. I think the noble Lord has not done justice to himself, to the Cabinet, of which he is the head, to this House, or to the strong claims of the country, which has so often maintained him in power, by not taking a line more decided on this great question. I am of opinion that the noble Lord has 1731 taken a course which is not only perilous to this House, but one that may prove fatal to the Administration of which he is the chief. When the present Parliament assembled at the beginning of this Session after the general election, the noble Lord had only a nominal majority in this House; and it was only by thirteen votes that he was placed in his present position. I am satisfied that be can retain that position no longer than he retains the confidence of all those on this side of the House, by whose votes he has been heretofore supported, and by that great party in the country that is represented on these benches. With regard to the Amendment of the hon. Member for Finsbury, I can assure the House I had not seen it till I came into the House, and I confess that it is one that had never suggested itself to me in the remotest degree. But to my mind that Amendment is dictated by a very clear and visible regard for the Constitution of this country; and for the honour and just functions of both Houses of Parliament. It was received with something like merriment; but the more the House considers it, the more they will feel, I am satisfied, that it is the best mode of maintaining the supremacy of this House as to matters of finance, while, at the same time, it maintains the dignity of the House of Lords, which I am one of the last who would seek to impair. [Laughter from the Opposition.] Do not let hon. Gentlemen for one moment fancy that I wish any governing power in this country to be degraded. If I were an avowed Republican—if I thought that in this country monarchy was no good, and the aristocracy no good, still so long as there is monarchy, and so long as there is an hereditary chamber, I say by all means maintain their dignity, and support them, as far as you can, in the true and honest estimation of the people; advise them, as I advise them—though they sometimes think in an unfriendly tone—so to rule and exercise their power, that their power may be perpetual. My hon. Friend the Member for Finsbury does not ask the House, as I understand him, to take any active steps in this matter—he does not ask you to express any resentment against the House of Lords for what has been done—he does not ask the noble Lord at the head of the Government to vary from the statement made the other night, when he said that he was anxious not to do anything to bring the Houses of Parliament into collision. The Amendment of my hon. 1732 Friend is of a totally opposite character, and I think it can be shown that it is one which, if time were granted for its full consideration, would be likely to be received with considerable favour. I am not at all sure but it will be more desirable to leave this matter for consideration until we next meet, in order that the Amendment of my hon. Friend may be more fully and fairly considered, both by the Government and this House. The noble Lord and his colleagues might then come to the conclusion that it was a mode of getting out of the difficulty in which we are placed, consistent with the dignity, the interests, and the just rights of both Houses of Parliament, and of the people whom we represent. What the hon. Gentleman proposes is just this; that time and reconsideration, which as we all know in private affairs are the great mediators in differences, should act similarly between this House and the House of Lords; and the difficulties which now present themselves would thus be absolutely surmounted, without any unpleasantness or jar. I am not profoundly informed on this subject. I suppose I shall be if this Committee is appointed; but I suspect there are precedents in favour of the course my hon. Friend has proposed. I know there are precedents in favour of a course which is not, at all events, a greater deviation from the ordinary rule. There have been cases in which the House of Lords has rejected a Bill which the Commons bad passed, and the Parliament has been prorogued for a week or a fortnight, and has met again, to enable the Government of the day to introduce for the second time the measure which, having been adopted by the Commons, was then sent up to receive the acceptance of the Lords. The hon. Gentleman does not propose that Parliament should be prorogued, or that the Session should be divided into two, for the purpose of enabling the Government to reintroduce the Bill; but he suggests that as soon as the business has terminated, the necessary adjournment of the House shall take place to November; and when the House assembles at that date it will be seen whether the House of Lords, upon reconsideration, and having discovered that the House of Commons is of opinion that the Bill may safely be passed, will not be disposed to accept the measure they have now resolved to postpone for six months. I would hope that the noble Lord, after what has taken place to-night, would not force the House to a division, either on his 1733 Motion for a Committee, or on the Amendment of the hon. Member for Finsbury, but would probably think it only just and advantageous that the debate should he adjourned to Thursday, with a view of giving to both sides of the House and to I all parties concerned an opportunity of coming to some decided opinion. I feel persuaded that the result of the discussion to-night will be satisfactory to the country, but I believe our decision will be still more so if the Government consent to the adjournment of the debate. I beg, therefore, to make this suggestion to the noble Lord, and with the permission of the House I shall move that this debate be adjourned till Thursday next.
§ Motion made, and Questioned proposed, "That the debate be now adjourned."
§ LORD JOHN RUSSELLSir, it is not because I underrate the importance of the subject that is now before the House that I ask the House to consent to the Motion of my noble Friend, and not to agree to either of the Amendments that have been proposed. It certainly appears to me that there has not been within my memory a question of greater importance than the question before us. It is a question which undoubtedly affects a most essential function of the House of Commons; but for that reason, and especially bearing in mind that which I always must bear in mind—namely, the reflection which my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham made, that there is no reason to suppose that any portion or any section of the Members of this House are either indifferent or lukewarm to the maintenance of our most sacred privileges—I would endeavour to do that which should most enlighten the House without calling upon it to come to anything like a premature decision: and that is the character of the proposition of my noble Friend. My hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham says the Motion ought to have been of a different kind—that it should have been a proposal pointing out the difference of various kinds of taxes, and founding on that difference a reference to a Committee. Now, I will own to my hon. Friend that when I first considered this question I was disposed to take that view of it. There is undoubtedly a distinction—a very clear distinction—between different Bills. One set of these is for the purpose of imposing taxes or of relieving persons from taxation, and for providing those charges which are necessary for the supply of the year; and there is another kind of Bill in which the 1734 tax is merely incidental, as, for instance, where a very high duty in the nature of a prohibition is placed on foreign corn. There it would be obvious that the duty was imposed not for the purpose of revenue, but with a totally different object, and with a view to protection. In the same way, if a Bill placed a certain tax on barley used for distillation, the House of Lords might consider it a Bill, not for taxation, but for protection. Bills of this kind do undoubtedly exist; but it would not be advisable to make that distinction in our reference, because it might be supposed such a distinction did not leave the Committee totally free, and might lead to confusion. Besides, there are other descriptions of Bills besides those which my hon. Friend has mentioned, and to which I have alluded. Therefore it appears to me that the best and most prudent conclusion is that at which, after much deliberation, my noble Friend has arrived, that a Committee should be appointed to ascertain the difference between those various descriptions of Bills, and to point out the precedents that have been established in regard to them. Sir, those precedents, no doubt, will be found of various kinds; and it will be the business of the Committee to ascertain whether the House of Lords in this instance has gone beyond or varied from former precedents, and in what respects they have done so. There are certain questions connected with this subject of taxation upon which the House of Lords are jealous, and I think not unnaturally jealous, of their privileges. For instance, when this House has mixed with a Bill imposing taxation other questions not properly belonging to it—when they have endeavoured to fix upon points of legislation, and prescribed how these points should be settled, under the name of imposing or repealing a tax, the House of Lords have, I think, while making the admission as to the privileges of this House, rightly interfered to prevent any encroachment or any attempt on the part of the House of Commons to carry our privileges beyond the mark to which we ourselves press them. There is an instance in which that kind of objection did apply. I mention it only as an example; but it appears to have been on a question not totally dissimilar from the events of the present year—it was the case of a Bill passed by Mr. Pitt through the House after the negotiation of the Commercial Treaty with France in 1787. It was objected in the House of Lords by several noble Lords on that occasion that 1735 in the Bill three separate subjects were combined—the Commercial Treaty with France was sanctioned; new taxes were imposed beyond the scope of the commercial treaty; and besides this there was a great consolidation of duties, making a new species of legislation with regard to customs. It was objected that those three subjects ought not to have been contained in one Bill, but the objection was overruled. I mention it only as an instance of the great jealousy of the House of Lords with regard to Bills which go beyond the purpose of imposing or relieving taxes; but as it is clear that upon subjects of this kind there are many precedents, and precedents applying to various descriptions of Bills, it would be wise, I think, in the House to furnish itself with every kind of information, and enlighten itself in reference to those historical questions, before it comes to any conclusion at all. There can be no harm in doing so. Our powers are very great. I, at least, am not one of those who think that the powers and privileges of the House of Commons are about to succumb to the authority of the House of Lords. I believe that our privileges will be maintained, and I do not think that, taking time for the consideration of what we shall do—giving ourselves every chance of deliberation, and taking care that we walk in the path of the Constitution—I do not think that that course will at all prevent our coming to a right and deliberate decision upon this question, Sir, my hon. Friend the Member for Finsbury has moved an Amendment upon my noble Friend's Motion, and that Amendment seems to me certainly to go not only beyond the question, but far beyond the question—because, while the fault that many of us find is, that the House of Lords has trenched upon the privileges of the House of Commons, my hon. Friend's Amendment proposes that the House of Commons should trench upon the prerogative of the Crown. It may be the right course—I will not argue the question now, but it may be the right course that her Majesty should be advised not to prorogue Parliament, but that a long adjournment should take place. I do not discuss the question whether that would be a right or a good course; but, in the first instance, it certainly would not be right, it would not be respectful, it would not be constitutional for this House to declare by Resolution that Her Majesty's prerogative of prorogation should not be exercised. I will read the Amendment to show what is the fault I find with it:— 1736
That it is the opinion of this House that when the state of public business permits, Parliament ought not then to adjourn beyond November next, whereby another opportunity will be afforded to the House of Lords of considering whether the said Bill may not be then advantageously agreed to.I will not dispute whether that may be a right course or a wrong course; but it is quite evident that it would be to interfere with the prerogative that is usually exercised by the Crown in the prorogation of Parliament. I own it appears to me that, without altering any portion of the Motion—which comprehends everything, and yet commits no one to any particular course—this House might now fairly proceed to agree to my noble Friend's Motion, and, when the Report of the Committee is brought up, hon. Gentlemen, when considering the privileges of this House, may come to a conclusion more consonant with that which has been done in former times, and more bearing the symptoms and fruits of deliberation than any conclusion we can arrive at at the present moment.
§ MR. CLAYsaid, he could not support the Amendment. The best means of obtaining a repeal of the paper duty might not be the best means, or any means, of vindicating the privileges of the House of Commons. Suppose the House of Lords, at the end of six months, altered its mind and passed the Bill it had postponed, how much nearer would the House of Commons be to knowing whether the House of Lords had, or had not, trenched on their privileges? He should, therefore, support the Motion for a Committee that would inform them of their rights, and whether they depended on written law or ancient usage. When the House knew its rights, let it maintain them. He hoped the noble Lord would not alter the terms of the reference, though he should not therefore withdraw his support from the Motion. He was quite content to trust the defence of the rights of the House to the noble Lord the Member for the City of London, than whom no man was better fitted by character, position, and name for the task.
§ MR. H. BAILLIEsaid, he should support the Motion for Committee. If the hon. Member for Finsbury (Mr. Duncombe) was of opinion that the Lords had not virtually rejected the Bill, but had merely postponed it, and if that opinion was correct, then the House of Commons had no right to interfere in the matter at all.
§ MR. WHALLEYsaid, he did not think that they were adopting the proper means for defending the privileges of the House. 1737 For his part, he had not the least doubt that the result of inquiry would be to reduce the question between the two Houses to a mere matter of the letter of the Constitution, by which the constitutional compact between the House of Commons and the Government would be entirely evaded. They were not now dealing with merely the amount of the paper duty, they were dealing with some £40,000,000 or £50,000,000 a year, over which, if they assented to the power claimed by the House of Lords, they would practically lose all control. He believed that the course about to be taken would be perfectly futile, and that it would still further endanger the constitutional rights of the House.
§ MR. BRIGHTI need hardly say that my object in moving the adjournment of the debate was not to impede in any way the progress of the business of the House. I did so because I thought it might be convenient to hon. Members opposite, as well as to some hon. Members sitting upon this side of the House, that the consideration of the question raised by the Motion of the noble Lord at the head of the Government should be postponed until after the recess. After the observations which have been made by the noble Lord the Member for London, however, which seemed to meet with general assent, and looking also to the state of my own feelings, which have been somewhat altered by what has been said, I shall, with the permission of the House, withdraw my Amendment. I should also like to put it to my hon. Friend the Member for Finsbury whether, seeing that it has been stated by the noble Lord that his Amendment would, if adopted, tend to interfere with the prerogative of the Crown, he would not consent to adopt a similar course.
§ Motion by leave withdrawn.
§ MR. T. S. DUNCOMBEI think that, under all the circumstances, I shall ask the House to permit me to withdraw the Amendment. I do so on the distinct understanding that when the Committee shall have made its Report with regard to precedents, I shall then have an opportunity of again moving it if it appears desirable to do so. With regard to some remarks made by an hon. Member opposite—
§ MR. SPEAKERsaid, the hon. Member for Finsbury was not entitled to reply upon the question.
§ MR. KNIGHTLEYsaid, he should oppose the withdrawal of the Amendment of 1738 the hon. Member for Finsbury. Tie thought it ought to be negatived in a becoming manner. Besides it had not appeared on the Notice Paper.
§ MR. T. S. DUNCOMBEsaid, he was not aware until the evening before what course the noble Viscount proposed to take, and he had prepared his Amendment since he had read the notice of Motion on the Orders of the Day.
§ MR. H. B. SHERIDANsaid, he would beg leave to ask whether, if the Committee were nominated, its numbers would not be enlarged. It would, he contended, be unfair to the two great sections on both sides of the House who sat below the gangway that they should not be represented upon it.
§ VISCOUNT PALMERSTONI hope the hon. Member opposite will not persist in adopting the somewhat unusual course of stopping in to prevent an hon. Gentleman who has made a Motion of this nature from withdrawing it, and thus saving the House the trouble of dividing. With respect to the question of the enlargement of the Committee, I may say that in my opinion the best time to discuss it would be when the Motion for the appointment of the Committee has been agreed to, and when I propose, as I intend to do, that it should consist of a certain number.
§ MR. KNIGHTLEYsaid, he had not the smallest wish to force the House to a division, but he simply desired to see the Amendment negatived.
§ THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUERsaid, that the course taken by the hon. Member would not effect that object. According to the forms of the House the Question that would be put was "that the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Question." No decision on that Question would give a direct negative to the Amendment.
§ LORD JOHN MANNERSsuggested to his hon. Friend the expediency of not pressing his objection to the withdrawal of the Amendment.
§ Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
§ Original Question put, and agreed to.
§ VISCOUNT PALMERSTONthereupon moved that the Committee consist of nineteen Members.
§ Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Committee do consist of nineteen Members."
§ MR. BRIGHTexpressed a wish to know whether the noble Lord intended that the Committee should meet the next day, or 1739 whether its sitting would be deferred until the reassembling of the House after the recess. It might be that some of the Members could not remain in town.
§ VISCOUNT PALMERSTONI think it would be convenient to hon. Members who are to serve on the Committee generally, that the usual course should be followed, and that the Committee should not meet until after the recess. As to the question whether it should consist of more than nineteen Members, I can only say that I have no particular objection to enlarge it beyond that number. It is, however, perhaps better to defer the consideration of that point until the House reassembles.
§ LORD FERMOYsaid, he happened to be one of those who, out of consideration to the request of the noble Lord that no remarks should be made upon the main question, had hitherto abstained from making any remarks, merely for the purpose of allowing the noble Lord, as leader of the House of Commons, to declare his policy on the subject. However, be thought—and many hon. Members were of the same opinion—that some deference ought to be paid to the two important sections of hon. Members below the gangway, in the selection of the names to be placed on the Committee. He himself was opposed to the view of the noble Lord with respect to the appointment of a Committee, but as the House had decided upon following that course, it was unfair that any of the large sections of that House should be unrepresented. There were a large number of hon. Members who sat below the gangway who entertained strong opinions on the subject, and he put it to the noble Lord whether he would not, for their satisfaction, then give notice that he meant to add the names of some hon. Members below the gangway on both sides of the House to the Committee.
§ MR. WYLDsaid, he would move as an Amendment that the number of the Committee be increased by four Members, and that the number be twenty-three instead of nineteen.
§ MR. SOTHERON ESTCOURTsaid, that the Amendment was not regular. It was not competent for the hon. Member to move the enlargement of the Committee without giving notice of his intention. If, however, the nineteen Members proposed by the Government were appointed, the hon. Member could give notice of the names which he intended to move as an addition to the Committee. He did not 1740 think it would be wise to enlarge the Committee to the number proposed by the hon. Gentleman; but perhaps the noble Lord would have no objection to make an addition of two Members—one to be taken from each side of the House.
§ MR. ROEBUCKsaid, he did not agree with the right hon. Gentleman. According to the rules of the House, when a question was put from the Chair any Amendment might be proposed, and consequently the hon. Member for Bodmin was in order.
§ MR. H. B. SHERIDANsaid, he thought the question for consideration by the Committee was of sufficient importance to warrant him in testing the principle that hon. Members below the gangway on either side of the House should be represented upon it; and with the view of giving an opportunity for further consideration of that point he begged to move that the debate be adjourned.
§ Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Debate be now adjourned."
§ MR. SPEAKERDoes any hon. Member second that Motion?
§ VISCOUNT PALMERSTONsaid, he hoped to meet the views of the hon. Gentlemen who had moved and seconded the adjournment by giving notice that on Thursday next he should move the addition of two members.
§ SIR JOHN PAKINGTONsaid, he had heard with great regret the decision of the noble Lord. Nothing was more inconvenient in practice than large Committees, and he was sorry to find there was a tendency to swell the numbers forming them. There was great difficulty in conducting the business when the number of members was large. He would rather the number in this instance had been fifteen instead of nineteen, but if the noble Lord was of opinion that it was desirable to increase that number to twenty-one, or even more, he (Sir John Pakington) would not oppose it. He highly approved of the fairness that had been displayed in the constitution of the Committee as regarded the balance of the two parties in the House. It was such as no one could take an exception to. As was usual when a Committee was moved for by a Government, ten members bad been selected from the Government side of the House and nine from the other side, which was as near an approach to equality as was possible under the circumstances. 1741 He hoped the noble Lord, immaking an addition to the numbers, would not take them all from the Government side of the House.
§ SIR GEORGE GREYsaid, his noble Friend did not say that he intended to take them from the Government side of the House. It was suggested that one should be taken from each side below the gangway, and his noble Friend in what he had consented to do believed he was acting in accordance with the general usage of the House, and he (Sir George Grey) was surprised to hear any objection to it, especially as it was a proposition that met with the approval and support of the right I hon. Member for North Wiltshire (Mr. S. Estcourt). It was competent for the House then to decide the number should be twenty-one instead of nineteen, but it was not usual to name the members until after I notice had been given. His noble Friend proposed to place the names on the paper that evening, and submit them to the House on their re-assembling after the recess.
§ SIR HENRY WILLOUGHBYsaid, he did not think the constitution of Committees was placed on a right basis. There were too many official Gentlemen, not fewer than twelve, who are or had been Cabinet Ministers, on this Committee. The various sections of opinion in that House could not he fairly represented with such a predominance of official members.
§ MR. H. B. SHERIDANsaid, that on the understanding that the two additional members to be moved on Thursday should he taken from below the gangway, he would withdraw his Motion for the adjournment of the debate.
§ Motion, by leave, withdrawn.
§ MR. WYLDsaid, he would also withdraw his Motion. His object in moving it had been to assert what he considered to be a right. Hon. Members below the gangway were always ready to support the Government when they felt they could do so consistently with principle. The Committee about to be appointed was one upon a subject which greatly affected their privileges, and they were entitled to be represented upon it. He had no intention to find fault with the constitution of the Committee.
§ Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
§ Original Motion, by leave, withdrawn.
§ Ordered, That the Committee do consist of twenty-one Members.
§ Committee nominated:—Viscount PALMERSTON, Mr. DISRAELI, Mr. CHANCELLOR of the Ex- 1742 CHEQUER, Mr. WALPOLE, LORD JOHN RUSSELL, Mr. ESTCOURT, Sir GEORGE GREY, Sir JOHN PAKINGTON, Sir JAMES GRAHAM, Mr. HENLEY, Mr. EDWARD PLEYDELL BOUVERIE, COLONEL WILSON PATTEN, Mr. MASSEY, Mr. BENTINCK, Mr. BRIGHT, Mr. ATTORNEY GENERAL, Sir HUGH CAIRNS, Mr. MORE O'FERRALL, and Sir WILLIAM HEATHCOTE;—Power to send for persons, papers, and records. Five to be the quorum.
§ On Motion that the House at its rising do adjourn to Thursday next,