stone's history as a financier, he asked what confidence the House could have in his counsels?

After a few explanatory remarks by the Chancellor of the Exchequer and Mr. Sidney Herbert, the House divided, when Sir. S. Northcote's amendment was nega tived by a majority of nine, the numbers for the original motion being 219, and against it 210. One member, however, Mr. Herbert Ingram, voted with the minority by mistake.

When the Bill was read a first time in the House of Lords a few days afterwards, Lord Monteagle gave notice that he should at the proper time move the rejection of it. Shortly afterwards the Earl of Derby, in the course of some observations impugning the whole financial policy of the Government, and especially that springing out of the treaty, said he could not oppose the Customs Bill, because it fulfilled the obligations undertaken in the treaty, but as regarded the Paper-duty Repeal Bill, the terms of the treaty did not interfere with that; it involved a dangerous sacrifice of 1,500,000l., and he should do everything in his power to promote the rejection of that Bill. It would be convenient when the Bill came up for a second reading to discuss the whole financial policy of the Government.

Lord Wicklow said that, as a rule, he objected to reject Bills which had been agreed to by the other House; he thought, however, that the Paper-duty Repeal Bill was one of that character which would justify them in making it an exception to that rule. He hoped, if the Government persisted in reading it a second time, that it would be rejected.

On the 21st May, Earl Gran

ville moved the second reading of the Paper-duty Repeal Bill in the House of Lords. Great interest was felt in the result of this proceeding, a reversal of the decision of the other House being confidently anticipated by the opponents of the Government, who were strengthened by the adhesion on this occasion of some Peers usually attached to the Liberal party. There was a large gathering of Peers, and the debate lasted much beyond the usual hours of that assembly. The noble Lord commenced his speech by a brief reference to the history of the tax, dwelling on its modern origin, and citing the opinions of several eminent members of the Opposition, adverse to the paper-duties. Then he went into the impost on its merits, dealing with facts made perfectly familiar by long years of. discussion; showing how it interferes with trade, weighs heavily on periodical literature and schoolbooks; and how, in the opinion of the Government, its repeal would give great relief to trade and industry. The House of Commons had discussed the question-should a reduced Income-tax have been imposed, and the paper-duties retained-and had decided not to retain those duties. In dealing with the Budget, he contented himself with a general survey of its principles, and insisted that the Government had provided enough for the service of the year. The China war was an element of uncertainty, but it would not have been wise to make an enormous provision on that account. Then there was the question of fortifications. The Report of the Defence Commission was before the Cabinet. If it should be rejected, the sum already voted would leave the fi

nances as they stood; if it was acted on, then that sum would pay the interest on the loan which might have to be raised to carry it out. There was one circumstance which told against him. The surplus of 460,000l. provided by Mr. Gladstone had already disappeared, 230,000l. being swallowed up to rectify an erroneous calculation by a department; and 180,000l. by the abandonment of taxes. But that had occurred to many Governments, and they had not thought fit to modify their financial proposals. In 1853, the estimated surplus disappeared; yet in 1854, there was a surplus of 3,500,000l. Dealing with the prospective deficiency, Lord Granville estimated it at 750,000l., protesting, at the same time, that it was not safe to rely on these estimates. Lord Derby, a few days before, had dwelt upon the distinction between a motion to reject the Bill made by Lord Monteagle and one made by himself. Surely he was not waiting to see whether an independent member would take up the matter before he made up his mind. Lord Derby had great qualities and many gifts, but he had not the gift of prophecy, for he erred in his prediction that the succession-duties would extract 4,000,000l. from the landowners. In 1846, he foretold a serious deficiency in 1847; bnt in 1847 there was a large surplus. Lord Granville proceeded to deal with certain statements made by Lord Derby to a deputation, and then turned to the constitutional question. He declared that the amendment was not in accordance with constitutional practice, but he did not attempt to deny that the House had a technical right to reject the Bill. By rejecting it, however, they would be acting unconstitutionally,

and imposing a burden on the people. There was no precedent for the rejection of a measure forming part of a whole financial scheme. Nor was the course just to trade, because contracts had been entered into on the faith of the repeal of these duties. Was it wise or expedient to place that House in opposition to the House of Commons?

"What ground for financial alarm is there, I should like to know, to be found in the present position of affairs? None; and I shall not, therefore, mince the matter, but shall take it for granted that many among your lordships look with some anxiety to foreign countries, and see certain signs in Europe which you think may possibly lead to war, and to complications which may result in dragging England into the contest. You take this view, and you seek to make due provision against the contingency which you apprehend. Heaven forbid, my lords, that I should give expression to a single syllable which would tend to encourage such an apprehension in the slightest degree! but if, unhappily, such a consummation as that to which I allude should arrive, what, let me ask, would be the best position in which we could stand to meet its approach? Which would be more desirable, that its advent should find the two Houses of Parliament acting with cordiality together, without a particle of jealous feeling towards one another, under their beloved Sovereign, directing in unison the energies of the wealthiest and the most public-spirited nation on earth, or that it should come upon us at a moment when a series of recriminations between the two branches of the legislature had

sprung up-and nobody can tell how soon they might, under such a state of things, break out-affording a scandalous spectacle to the other nations of Europe?"

In conclusion, Lord Granville asked, whether it was wise in that House, now so popular, to furnish ground for declamation and agitation-to introduce a new system, and make its hand seen and felt in every burthen that presses upon the people?

Lord Lyndhurst took up the constitutional question and the privileges of the House. He proposed to lay before the House the facts, the principles, the authorities, and the precedents in connection with the point under discussion. But first he disposed of those points not disputed-that the House cannot alter, or originate, or amend a Money Bill. There had been controversies on the point in former times, but the House abandoned the claim to alter or originate Money Bills, because they could not enforce it. But this principle did not apply to the rejection of Money Bills. The right to reject Money Bills had never been denied. Those who argued that because the House had no right to amend or originate, therefore it had no right to reject a Money Bill, had omitted, in quoting authorities, to quote those that tell against them, and which are in the self-same book from which they quote. Is this fair, or candid? In 1689, the Lords amended a Money Bill; the Commons disagreed, a conference took place, and the Commons, while insisting in ample and precise terms, that the Lords had no right to alter or amend a Money Bill, laid it down that the Lords had no right to interpose in such

Bills, otherwise "than to pass or reject the same for the whole, without any alteration or amendment though in ease of the subject." Nothing could be more distinct than this admission.

But they did not stop there. They went on, and used a kind of simile: "As the Kings and Queens, by the laws and constitutions of Parliament, are to take all, or to leave all, in such gifts, grants, and presents from the Commons, and cannot take part and leave part, so are the Lords to pass all or reject all, without diminution or alteration." This was not an admission of power, but of a right— an admission by the Commons of a constitutional right of this House.

In 1671, in conference on a Bill amended by the Lords, the Lords said that the two Houses should be checks to each other; and the Commons answered, "so they are still, for your lordships have a negative on the whole. They said to the Lords-" the King must deny the whole of every Bill or pass it; yet this does not take away his negative voice — why should it take away yours?" In discussing the Succession-duties Bill in 1853, Lord Aberdeen— "and no man can be more conversant with our privileges "-said, "Your lordships cannot alter a title of this Bill, not a particle. You may-and this you have a full right to do-throw it out upon the second reading. That is perfectly within your lordships' competence to do." This right to reject a Bill had been acted on without dispute at a recent period. In 1809, a Bill granting duties on malt was rejected. In 1789, a Bill imposing a duty on cocoa-nuts was rejected. In 1790, a similar Bill was rejected. No complaint

was made by the House of Commons. A distinction was drawn between Bills imposing taxes, and Bills giving relief from taxes. That was a new doctrine. What was the practice? In 1790, a Bill relieving the coasting trade by abolishing stamps was rejected, In 1805, a Bill to abolish fees payable to the Custom-house was rejected; and again in 1807. In 1808, a Bill to repeal duties on coal carried coastwise was rejected. In 1811, a Bill to suspend for one year the duties on corn, and to permit distillation from sugar, was thrown out. Lord Liverpool made no complaint, but in bringing in a Bill to make amends for the loss, the Minister said, "I introduce this Bill in consequence of the rejection of a Bill by the other House." The present was a stronger case than that. It was the case of a tax in progress :

"The moment a Bill has passed this and the other House, and received the Royal Assent, it becomes the law of the land. All individual authority on the part of the House of Commons is at an end — and the House has no more authority over it than your lordships have. It is a law which, like any other law, can only be revoked by the joint action of the two Houses of Parliament and with the consent of the Crown. The question comes to this. If your lordships are satisfied, as you must be, that you have not only the power but the constitutional right to reject this Bill; and if you are satisfied that there is an actual deficiency, that next year there must be an enormous deficiency, and that the present state of Europe is such as to create a continual anxiety, then I ask your lordships, will you con

sent to give up, not for the present year only, but permanently, a sum of nearly a million and a half?"

Lord Monteagle mainly addressed himself to the financial question; but before he came to that subject, he took occasion to deny that there was any combination between himself and Lord Derby, and to add to the precedents cited by Lord Lyndhurst. In 1758, the lords threw out a Bill discontinuing for a limited time the duties on tallow imported from Ireland. In 1816, they rejected a Bill to repeal the Excise duties on stone bottles, and impose other duties in lieu thereof. Lord Monteagle denied that if the House rejected the Bill it would be imposing a tax on the people, for the tax did not exist by virtue of a vote of the House of Commons, but by the law of the land, on the assent of the Queen, Lords, and Commons. It was said that the 1d. Income-tax was a substitute for the tax on paper: should the Bill be rejected, there would be nothing to prevent the House of Commons from applying the 1,400,000l. to reduce the Incometax, or to lower the tea and sugar duties.

We

Having made these remarks, Lord Monteagle entered minutely into an examination of the Budget, and combated the financial principles of Mr. Gladstone. had no money to spare. It was only a pretty imagination in Mr. Gladstone to say that, when the Long Annuities fell in, we had 2,000,000l. at our disposal. The payment of that money was anticipated, and there was not a single sixpence of it available. Mr. Gladstone's surplus of 474,000l. had already passed away. But this was not all; there would be the expense of the Chinese war, as yet unascer

tained; and during the progress of the Budget there had been an extra loss of 171,000l. on the wine duties. How should we stand next year? According to his calculations, there would be a deficit of 11,033,000l. Were they, then, justified in parting with a revenue of 1,400,000l., which only cost 6,250l. to collect, which represented a capital sum of 36,000,000l., and was a growing revenue? He moved that the Bill be read a second time on that day six months. Lord Dufferin gave the Government his hearty support, holding that it was not for the Lords to take the responsibility of deciding which taxes should or should not be levied, and appealing to the House to act in a constitutional spirit, and thus advance another claim to the confidence of the country. The Marquis of Clanricarde also spoke in favour of the Bill, and though admitting the right to reject it, urged the impolicy of doing so. The Duke of Rutland supported the amendment, mainly on Protectionist grounds.

Lord Cranworth admitted that the House could reject a Bill, whether for relief or burthen, but insisted that it had never refused to concur in the repeal of a tax under such circumstances as the present. The House of Commons had declared that the paper-duty was not required for the service of the State. A Bill in like circumstances had never since the Revolution been rejected by the House of Lords. The Bill rejected in 1790 had several objects, and when anything is "tacked" to a Money Bill, the Lords may reject the whole. The Bills to abolish Custom-house fees did not affect annual revenue. The precedent of 1811 was strained. The precedents cited by Lord Monteagle

were examined and shown not to be valid. Lord Cranworth hoped that the House would not act in opposition to the usages which had prevailed since the Revolution.

Lord Chelmsford briefly supported the argument of Lord Lyndhurst in favour of the power of the House to reject the Bill.

The Duke of Argyll, in a long and able speech, explained and vindicated the financial policy of the Government. He disclaimed an imputation often made against them, that they sought to impair the revenue derived from indirect taxes, with a view of imposing a heavier burthen upon the owners of realized property. Not only did he repudiate any such design on their part, but he declared his conviction that direct taxation in its present shape had arrived at a point at which it could not safely be maintained in time of peace. But now the service of the year could not be provided for without a high Income-tax, which was required to remedy a deficiency of revenue, and to carry out commercial reforms. Mr. Gladstone's Budget had aimed at striking off unproductive duties and those which were expensive in collection. Turning to the paper-duties, he made out that they interfered with trade and production, that the Customs' duty was a protective duty, and that the Excise impeded trade. He admitted the technical right of the House to reject the Bill, but the gist of the question depended not on technical but on substantial grounds. There was a distinction between Money-Bills and Supply-Bills. Lord Lynd

hurst's precedents were all mere Money-Bills: there was no instance since the Revolution of the rejection of a Supply-Bill by the Lords.