posed the third reading of the Wines and Cider Duties Bill, it was observed that this was the first occasion, on which they had been known to divide upon a money bill.1

Lords.

But while they abstained from interference with the supplies and ways and means, granted by the Com- Tax bills remons for the public service, they occasionally re- jected by the jected or postponed other bills, incidentally affecting supply and taxation: bills imposing or repealing, protec tive duties; bills for the regulation of trade; and bills embracing other disputable matters of legislation, irrespective of taxation. Of these, the greater part were measures of legislative policy, rather than measures of revenue; and with the single exception of the Corn Bill of 1827, their fate does not appear to have excited any jealousy in the sensitive minds of the Commons.

1860.

At length, in 1860, the Lords exercised their power, in a novel and startling form. The Commons had rePaper Duties solved, among other financial arrangements for the Repeal Bill, year, to increase the property tax and stamp duties, and to repeal the duties on paper. The Property Tax and Stamp Duties Bills had already received the royal assent, when the Paper Duties Repeal Bill was received by the Lords. It had encountered strong opposition in the Commons, where its third reading was agreed to, by the small majority of nine. And now the Lords determined, by a majority of eighty-nine, to postpone the second reading for six months. Having assented to the increased taxation of the annual budget, they refused the relief, by which it had been accompanied.

Never until now, had the Lords rejected a bill for imposing or repealing a tax, raised solely for the pur- Relative poses of revenue,—and involving the supplies and rights of the ways and means, for the service of the year. Never had they assumed the right of reviewing the calcula tions of the Commons, regarding revenue and expenditure.

1 March 30th, 1763; Parl. Hist. xv. 1316.

two Houses.

In principle, all previous invasions of the cherished rights of .ne Commons, had been trifling compared with this. Wha was a mere amendment in a money bill, compared with its irrevocable rejection? But on the other hand, the legal right of the Lords to reject any bill whatever, could not be disputed. Even their constitutional right to "negative the whole" of a money bill, had been admitted by the Cominions themselves. Nor was this strictly, and in technical form, a money bill. It neither granted any tax to the Crown, nor recited that the paper duty was repealed, in consideration of other taxes imposed. It simply repealed the existing law, under which the duty was levied. Technically, no privilege of the Commons, as previously declared, had been infringed. Yet it was contended, with great force, that to undertake the office of revising the balances of supplies and ways and means, which had never been assumed by the Lords, during

Proceedings

of the Commons.

two hundred years, was a breach of constitutional usage, and a violation of the first principles, upon which the privileges of the House are founded. If the letter of the law was with the Lords, its spirit was clearly with the Commons. Had the position of parties, and the temper of the times been such as to encourage a violent collision between the two Houses, there had rarely been an occasion more likely to provoke it. But this embarrassment the government were anxious to avert; and many causes concurred to favor moderate counsels. A committee was therefore appointed in the Commons, to search for precedents. The search was long and intricate: the report copious and elaborate; but no opinion was given upon the grave question at issue. The lapse of six weeks had already moderated the heat and excitement of the controversy; when on the 5th July, Lord Palmerston, on the part of the government, explained the course which he counselled the House to adopt. Having stated what were the acknowledged privileges of the House, and referred to the precedents collected by the committee, he expressed his opinion that the Lords,

mons.

in rejecting the Paper Duties Bill, had no desire to invade the constitutional rights of the Commons; but had been actuated, as on former occasions, by motives of public policy. He could not believe that they were commencing a deliberate course of interference with the peculiar functions of the ComBut should that appear to be their intention, the latter would know how to vindicate their privileges, if invaded, and would be supported by the people. He deprecated a collision between the two Houses. Any one who should provoke it, would incur a grave responsibility. With these views, he proposed three resolutions. The first asserted generally, "that the right of granting aids and supplies to the Crown, is in the Commons alone." The second affirmed, that although the Lords had sometimes exercised the power of rejecting bills of several descriptions, relating to taxation, yet the exercise of that power was "justly regarded by this House with peculiar jealousy, as affecting the right of the Commons to grant the supplies, and to provide the ways and means for the service of the year." The third stated, "that to guard for the future, against an undue exercise of that power by the Lords, and to secure to the Commons their rightful control over taxation and supply, this House has in its own hands, the power so to impose and remit taxes, and to frame bills of supply, that the right of the Commons as to the matter, manner, measure, and time, may be maintained inviolate."

- to assert

The aim of these resolutions was briefly this: broadly the constitutional rights of the Commons: to qualify former admissions, by declaring their jealousy of the power exercised by the Lords, of rejecting bills relating to taxation; and to convey a warning that the Commons had the means of resisting that power, if unduly exercised, and were prepared to use them. They were a protest against future encroachments: not a remonstrance on the past. The resolutions, though exposed to severe criticism, as not sufficiently vindicating the privileges of the House, or con

demning the recent conduct of the Lords, were yet accepted, -it may be said, unanimously. The soundest friends of the House of Lords, and of constitutional government, hoped that a course so temperate and conciliatory, might prevent future differences of the same kind. Should their hope be falsified, the Commons, having shown an example of forbearance, - which might have been vainly sought, in an assembly less conscious of its strength, may be provoked to exercise their unquestionable powers. Having gained moral force, by their previous moderation, they would not appeal in vain for popular support, and who can doubt the result?

ry oratory.

One of the proud results of our free constitution has been Parliamenta- the development of Parliamentary oratory, an honor and ornament to our history, a source of public enlightenment, and an effective instrument of popular government. Its excellence has varied, like our literature, with the genius of the men, and the events of the periods, which have called it forth; but from the accession of George III. may be dated the Augustan era of Parliamentary eloquence.

The great struggles of the Parliament with Charles I. had stirred the eloquence of Pym, Hampden, Wentworth, and Falkland: the Revolution had developed the oratory of Somers; and the Parliaments of Anne, and the two first Georges, had given scope to the various talents of Bolingbroke, Pulteney, Wyndham, and Walpole. The reputation of these men has reached posterity; but their speeches, if they survived the memory of their own generations, have come down to us in fragments, - as much the composition of the historian or reporter, as of the orators, to whom they are assigned.2 Happily the very period distinguished

1 Debates, July 5th and 6th, 1860; Hansard's Deb., 3d Ser., clix. 1383; Report of Committee on Tax Bills, June 29th, 1860.

2 Of the speeches of Somers and Bolingbroke there are no remains whatever. Mr. Pitt said he would rather recover a speech of Bolingbroke thau the lost books of Livy, or other writings of antiquity.

by our most eloquent statesmen was that in which they had the privilege of addressing posterity, as well as their own contemporaries. The expansion of their audience gave a new impulse to their eloquence, which was worthy of being preserved for all ages.

ham.

Lord Chatham had attained the first place among statesmen in the late reign, but his fame as an orator Lord Chatmainly rests upon his later speeches, in the reign of George III. Lofty and impassioned in his style, and dramatic in his manner, his oratory abounded in grand ideas and noble sentiments, expressed in language simple, bold, and vigorous. The finest examples of his eloquence stand alone, and unrivalled; but he flourished too early, to enjoy the privilege of transmitting the full fruits of his genius to posterity.1

He was surrounded and followed by a group of orators, who have made their time the classic age of Par- Mr. Pitt. liamentary history. Foremost amongst them was his extraordinary son, William Pitt. Inferior to his father in the highest qualities of an orator,-he surpassed him in argument, in knowledge, in intellectual force, and mastery. Magniloquent in his style, his oratory sometimes attained the elevation of eloquence; but rarely rose above the level of debate. His composition was felicitously described by Windham, as a "State paper style." He may be called the founder of the modern school of Parliamentary debaters. His speeches were argumentative, admirably clear in statement, skilfully arranged, vigorous and practical. Always marked by rare ability, they yet lacked the higher inspirations of genius. In sarcasm he had few equals. No one held so absolute a sway over the House of Commons. In voice and manner, he was dignified and commanding. The minister was declared in every word he uttered; and the consciousness of

1 Sone of his earlier speeches were composed by Dr. Johnson from the notes of others; and even his later speeches were delivered when reporting was still very imperfect.