GENERAL SUMMARY.

Colonist, Volume III, Issue 297, 24 August 1860, Page 3

GENERAL SUMMARY.

A "collision " has taken place between the Lords and Commons on the subject of the Paper Duty. But the people take very little interest in the matter; and public opinion is so unwilling to encourage a dispute between the two Houses of Parliament on a point of casuistry, that all the efforts which have been made'to get up an agitation have made hardly-any impression on the. country. ' ••■lt will be remembered that the repeal of the Paper Duty was carried in a pretty full House by'the narrow majority of 9. This certainly could not, be admitted as an argument for the rejection of the measure by the' Lords; but we mention it as serving to show that the opinion'of the tower House was not;expressed very strongly in favour of the. bill." Under these circumstances it went to the Lords, who rejected it by the large majority of B§. The grounds upon which, the Lords arrived-at this decision were, wholly independent of the a^stractquestion, whether the duty ought, or ought not, to be repealed. The debate took a different route; and many of the peers who voted, for the rejection of the bill are known to be favourable to its;; provisions;.' Lord Derby declined to discuss the repeat of .the Paper Duty as a separateproposition, regarding it only as part of a financial scheme, which, in order to make up for the loss it would entail upon the revenue, increased the income tax and retained the tea and sugar duties. His opinion^ and, we believe, the opinion of the great bulk of the people, is that it would have been better to have continued a duty which i does ; not , materially affect' the interests of the, community' at large, than to have augmented the weight of the. most unpopular of all our burthens, and to: have kept still in force iwo duties which iriterfere directly with the /comfortsi of the middle and.lower classes. It' seems, indeed, to be generally thought that a time when it was found necessary to increase our imposts was ill chosen for the repeal of the Paper Duty. \';v\// • •"•:^ ■':";:J.'"'' V :; Jit is ''.not,' however, in reference to this matter of taxation merely 'that the proceedings of the Lords have awakened; unusual public interest, but mainly in .reference -to, the constitutional question; opened-by the rejection of a Mfohey Bill. Have the liords; the right to refuse their sanction to such a bill? -Nobody denies that the right of taxation is vested exclusively in: the hands of the; representatives, of the people; nor tloes anybody venture to affirm that the Lbfds'can originate taxation, or that, 'they can even modify or alter any existing tax, or any tax proposed by the Commons. The; theory of the: constitution on ' these poijcits is simple enough; the Queen asks, the Commons grant, the .Lords', assent. Hiw^ then, caa the Lordsi without violating the fundamental principles upon which the action of the two houses rests, refuse their aspect to a Money Bill ? The answer is as (

simple as ; the theory to which it refers. The Lords have no povver to originate or alter. , They have no power but,that of assent, which, of course, brings with it the right of dissent. They can assent or dissent to a money bill as a whole, but they cannot alter or originate a Money Bill. If the Lord's had not the right of dissent, it would be a pure fiction to send up bills for their assent, which in that case, would not be assent, but, submission to the will of the Commons. • • • Now,1 how does this exposition of the relations of the two .branches of the Legislature apply to the case of the Paper Duty ? It is alleged, on the one hand, that by refusing •to repeal a-duty, which the Queen and the Commons had already provided for.^ the 'Lords have, in effect, put an additional burthen upon the community, and that such refusal is, consequently, equivalent to the imposition of a new tax. On the other hand, it is answered that-the Lords have in reality done nothing at all, the actual result of their decision being to leave the duty exactly where they found-it. The Lords deny that. there is any,power resident in, two branches of the Legislature to make a law; and while they fully except the right or the Commons in reference to . taxation, they insist upon considering Money Bills as coming within the general.rule oflegislation, subject only to the special condition that they shall not be; ■altered m the Upper' House: .' [ .■".' . " } The Commons have'taken the matter very. philosophically, and Ministers have aleady signified theit intention not to make the verdict on the Paper Duty a ground of dissension between the two Houses. A committee of enquiry has "been'appointed to search for precedents;. but, notwithstanding the imprudent zeal of sundry indignant members, it is no.t at all likely that any seriouss,result will follow. Several "indignation" meetings have been held on the subject; but until the committee shall have furnished tneir report, it is felt on all hands that it is useless to agitate. After the recess of the Whitsun week, Par-: liament met again for business on the 31st of May, when nearly the whole of the debates were on military topics, cropping up 'out of the motion for going into committee of supply on the Army Estimates. The question of Colonial defences was touched upon by Mr. Adderley, who insisted on the propriety of compelling the colonies to defend; themselves at their own expense. ' Independently of the rank injustice and folly of such a demand, it is open to the additional objection of assuming the whole question as if it were exclusively an Imperial question, in which the colonies themselves were not entitled to be heard. Mr. Sidney -Herbert did not make quite so much of this objection as he might have done; but he took care to let it be understood that Government does not intend to settle the matter of defences, without consulting the views of those who are directly interested in the arrangement. Sir Charles Wood's motion for leave to introduce a bill to repeal an act past last session, giving Powers to the Secretary of State for India to raise men in this country for local service in the East, has been : agreed to. The effect of his speech upon the House generally was to produce an impres^ sion that the real meaning of the bill was to. tax India for Imperial objects, and to vest in the Horse Guards, for the benefit of the few, that enormous patronage which has hitherto been practically at the disposal of the many. Sir Charles struggled hard for leave to introduce his bill at once; but there was so strong a resistance upon the very threshold that even the ordinary form was denied to him, and the discussion was adjourned to the 21st of June, when, after an able, but vacillating, speech from Lord Stanley,'and some few brief observations from other members, leave.was given to introduce the bill. There will, doubtless be a discussion on the second reading; but the amalgamation of the local and Imperial, armies may be considered a. fait accompli.

The absolute indifference of the country; at large to the question of Reform has never been shown so unmistakeably as in the reception given, to, the last movement of Ministers in reference to their bill. Three weeks ago Lord Palmerston was to stand upon the bill; and if it were defeated 4 or mangled in committee, he was to resign" or to dissolve Parliament. While this menace was yet ringing hi the ears of listless millions, Lord John Eussell relieved the Car binet from the dillemnia in which .it was rapidly getting itself shut up, by withdrawing the bill altogether. Of course under this very unexpected change of circumstances, Ministers are not called upon either to resign or dissolve.. They have: relinquished the contest, and are no longer required to decide what they will do in the event of :a defeat. There can be no defeat in the case; or, if there be any, it is a defeat which they have inflicted upon themselves with their own hands. Should any injudicious supporters of Government, however, claim, "it as a victory, they must be content with the doubtful honors of a -Parthian triumph. It,is not to-be disguised that the proceeding has greatly weakened the moral weight of ;an. Administration, which is abundantly; strong in able men, and wants nothing to endow ii with stability but a more consistent; and less suspicious policy. , ; y i '■":"_'■ : It is quite true as stated by Lord John Russell, and echoed by Mr. Disraeli, that it would have been impossible to pass the Reform Bill this" session. On the 11th of June the bill had not got into committee, and the discussion was still gbiug on as to whether ii; was to be committed or not. There were no less:than 250 members for postponing the question ; and there were sixty or severity amendments to be taken into consideration...? Were both houses -of: Parliament perfectly disengaged, with nothing' else: in the world to do but to'look after Reform, it would have been scarcely possible to have carried the bill within the ordinary limits of the session. Eat so far

from being disengaged, there never was a.; moment when Parliament had more urgent j business to transact. There are amongst j the prominent topics, the pending discus- J sion between the two Houses, the French | treaty, the Italian imbroglio, the war with China, the reorganisation of the Indian, army, and the questions of the defences, supply, and taxation. It is pretty certa:n that, even without being hampered by a Reform debate, .Parliament will be, compelled to close the session^ as it is, with a heavy slaughter of innocents; and it is no less certain that if the Reform Bill had been retained in the programme, it must have shared the same fate. The . there-' fore, upon which the bill was withdrawn must be admitted to be valid. But this does not exonerate ministers froni the responsibility of having brought themselves into a difficulty from which they had no escape but flight. Their situation, so far as the Reform Bill is concerned, bears a close resemblance to that of a garrison which is obliged to. surrender, ,but is permitted to march Ojijt' with the honors of, war.