indifference almost bordering on aversion. Mr. Massey, whose motion was intended to shelve the bill, was a faithful and confidential adherent whose services he afterwards rewarded; and Mr. Mackinnon, who had given notice of a motion for delaying the consideration of the bill till after the year 1861, when the census would be taken, and whose motion was the immediate occasion of the defeat of the measure, always considered that he had thereby rendered Lord Palmerston a very acceptable service. The premier, too, who was remarkable for the steadfastness with which on almost all occasions he kept his place in the House whenever any subject in which the government was concerned was under discussion, was almost invariably absent from the debates on the reform bill, and significantly silent with regard to it even when present. Thus, what with the obstructive policy, not only of the opposition but of many professed members of the liberal party, and what with the half-hearted support that many of the followers of the government and even many of the ministry themselves, not excepting the head of the administration, gave to it, there was little hope of being able to push the bill through the House of Commons in the course of this session.

However, Monday, the 4th of June, was the day on which it had been fixed that the House of Commons should go into committee on the bill. Mr. Mackinnon then moved that the House should not proceed farther with the consideration of it until it was placed in possession of the census of 1861; a motion which, if carried, would have the effect of postponing the measure for at least three years. Mr. Mackinnon, who for many years had been a wellknown member of parliament, had, as we have already seen in the history of that year, proposed a similar motion with regard to the reform bill of 1831, and had obtained a larger number of supporters for it than was procured for any other motion that was resisted by the government; and he eventually succeeded in carrying his point, the census of 1831 being made by the government the basis of the act of 1832. His long standing in the House, his personal popularity, but, above all, the desire that was felt by a majority of the members to avail themselves of a specious pretext for getting rid of the question for the next

1860.]

MR. MACKINNON.

163

three years, brought together an unusually large number of members, and when Mr. Mackinnon rose to propose his motion the house was crowded in all parts; and as it was very generally believed that the government was likely to be defeated on his motion, the scene was like that which accompanies the explanation of a great measure by the leader of the government, or the introduction of a budget by Mr. Gladstone. Mr. Mackinnon, who was usually an embarrassed and ineffective speaker, and who, though a very old member of the House, rarely addressed it, was, as may well be imagined, somewhat unnerved when he found himself the centre of so much interest and excitement, and he commenced his address, amidst the breathless silence of the crowded and excited assembly, in a manner that showed he was not a little daunted by the great and unwonted interest his motion had awakened. However, stimulated by the cheers which greeted almost every sentence he uttered, he soon recovered his self-possession, and gathering courage as he went on, he made a long and very telling speeeh. The opposition leaders saw the effect that had been produced, but they were not that evening sufficiently strong in numbers to take advantage of it. Members were therefore put up to speak against time, and the debate was adjourned with a very prevalent belief that Mr. Mackinnon's motion would be carried. Accordingly, on the following Monday, there were great preparations for a division, and a general expectation that it would be fatal to the farther progress of the measure. Ministers, however, determined to decline a contest which had no longer an object, and to avoid what would probably have been a damaging defeat by withdrawing a bill which evidently could not be carried even through the House ef Commons during the session, still less through the House of Lords, where it was sure to encounter a very formidable opposition. When, therefore, on Monday, June the 11th, the order of the day was moved, for the resumption of the adjourned debate on going into committee on the representation of the people bill, Lord J. Russell said: 'It is impossible that the government can agree to the motion of Mr. Mackinnon, to stay the progress of this measure till the result of the next census has been ascertained. Neither can they, regard being had to the fact that 250 members

have voted in favour of postponing the measure, insist any longer on urging it forward. Looking also to the impossibility of carrying the bill through both houses of parliament in the present session, without sacrificing the other business of the session, they feel it is their duty to withdraw it at once.' He stated that the delay had arisen from the necessity of giving precedence to discussions arising out of the French treaty, and defended the government from the charge of insincerity. That Lord John Russell himself was not obnoxious to any such accusation will be readily admitted, but it is not so easy to absolve some of his colleagues, especially when we consider the course that was adopted with regard to this question during the remainder of Lord Palmerston's administration. But something no doubt may be pleaded, if not in excuse, at least in extenuation of their conduct. The people, though by no means indifferent, did not feel strongly on the subject, and did not give the government a very warm support. It is no doubt true, as Lord J. Russell repeatedly urged, that it is better to deal with questions of this nature when the people are calm rather than wait for periods of strong excitement; but unfortunately it is only when a very strong feeling on the subject prevails that parliament can be induced to deal with them. And so we find that when the majority of the nation was coldly favourable to reform, the majority of their representatives was decidedly unfavourable; and there can be no doubt that many a member sent to the House of Commons because he was believed to be a strong and honest reformer, was secretly doing his utmost to defeat the small modicum of reform which the government was willing to concede, because they knew that the adoption of a reform bill would be followed by a dissolution. All this did not tend to raise the character of the House of Commons in the eyes of the nation at large, but it did tend to confirm the opinion that reform was needed, and to insure that when it came it should be decided and efficient.

On Monday, the 21st of May, the paper-duties bill came before the House of Lords for the second reading, and it was rumoured that a great attempt would be made to throw it out. The consequence was, that the approaches to that house were crowded, and the same kind of interest mani

1860.] THE LORDS REJECT PAPER-DUTY BILL.

165

fested as when some highly-important measure was under the consideration of the House of Commons. As the bill involved a remission of taxation, the attempt to reject it raised a great constitutional question. It was admitted that the Lords had no right to amend a money bill so as to change the amount or incidence of taxation in the smallest particular; but when the question of the second reading had been brought before the House of Lords by Lord Granville, Lord Lyndhurst, who on that very day had reached his eighty-eighth year, stood up, and speaking with all the eloquence and all the acuteness which had made him a man of mark some fifty or sixty years before, contended that the House of Lords possessed the right to reject a moneybill. He produced several venerable and mouldy documents, which showed beyond dispute the fact that the peers had in past ages exercised this right, and he asked the pertinent question, 'If we have not this right, what is the use of our discussing money-bills at all?' This was unanswerable, so far as the question of abstract right was concerned; but the real question was, is it wise to attempt to revive a dormant privilege which clearly trenches on the supremacy of the representatives of the people in regard to all matters of taxation, and the exercise of which is certain to lead to its withdrawal, and that too under circumstances calculated to weaken the authority of the House of Lords and lower its reputation?

The opposition to the bill, led by Lord Monteagle, formerly Mr. Spring Rice and Whig chancellor of the exchequer, was warmly supported by Lord Derby and Lord Chelmsford. On the other hand, Lord Cranworth, the lord chancellor, urged that the course proposed to be taken, if not, strictly speaking, unconstitutional, was so thinly separated from it, that to ordinary minds the distinction would be unintelligible. He pointed out that in no instance since the revolution of 1688 had such a step as the rejection of a bill passed by the House of Commons for the repeal of a tax been taken by the peers; and he contended that all the precedents quoted by Lord Lyndhurst were peculiar in their circumstances and exceptional in their

nature.

These considerations were disregarded, and when the division took place the numbers were:

Thus a tax, which a majority of the representatives of the people had determined to remit, was continued by the authority of the House of Lords. The constitutional question thus raised was evidently of the gravest importance, and it was expected that the government, whose measure had been defeated and whose financial plans had been disarranged, would take the matter up warmly, and that a collision between the two houses would inevitably follow. There was therefore a very general expectation that on the following evening some very decided step would be taken, or that a ministerial crisis would be announced; and there was all that crowding of the house and of its approaches which such an expectation is sure to produce. But no little disappointment was felt when Lord Palmerston, on moving the adjournment of the house over the 25th, the Derby-day, contented himself with giving a simple notice that he should on Thursday the 24th move for the appointment of a select committee to examine the journals of the House of Lords for precedents with reference to the course which had been adopted by that house with regard to the bill for the repeal of the paper duties, and disclaimed, on the part of the government, any intention of taking steps which might bring the two houses into collision. On the following Thursday the motion for the committee was made. It was a mere matter of form. The gentlemen nominated never left their seats, and their report, couched in bad English and worse Latin, was brought up and read at the bar of the house. It contained nothing which had not already been made known by the newspapers to everybody both in and out of the House. The real discussion of what had taken place was reserved for a future day, and it was still generally expected, notwithstanding the characteristic coolness with which the premier treated the matter, that some very decided course would be taken by the government; but the arrival of the Whitsun holidays prevented the subject from being considered until Thursday, July the 5th. On that evening a great number of petitions