“3.  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.”

The burden of the speech by which the Premier supported these resolutions was this.  The assent of both Houses is necessary to a bill, and each branch possesses the power of rejection.  But in regard to certain bills, to wit, Money Bills, the House claims, as its peculiar and exclusive privilege, the right of originating, altering, or amending them.  As the Lords have, however, the right and power of assenting, they have also the right and power of rejecting.  He admitted that they had frequently exercised this right of rejection.  Yet it must be observed, that, when they had done so, it had been in the case of bills involving taxes of small amount, or connected with questions of commercial protection.  No case had ever occurred precisely like this, where a bill providing for the repeal of a tax of large amount, and on the face of it unmixed with any other question, had been rejected by the Lords.

“But, in point of fact,” he continued, “was there not another question involved?  Was it not clear, that, the bill having passed by a majority greatly reduced since its second reading, the Lords may have thought that it would be well to give the Commons further time to reflect?  Indeed, was there not abundant reason to believe that the Lords were not really initiating a new and dangerous policy, that of claiming to be partners with the House in originating and disposing of Money Bills?  Therefore, would it not be sufficient for the House firmly to assert its rights, and to intimate the jealous care with which it intended to guard against their infringement?”

Of course, this brief and imperfect abstract of an hour’s speech can do no sort of justice to its merits.  It is much easier to describe its effect upon the House.  From the moment when the Premier uttered his opening sentence, “I rise upon an occasion which will undoubtedly rank as one of the first in importance among those which have occurred in regard to our Parliamentary proceedings,” he commanded the closest attention of the House.  And yet he was neither eloquent, impressive, nor even earnest.  There was not the slightest attempt at declamation.  His voice rarely rose above a conversational tone, and his gestures were not so numerous or so decided as are usual in animated dialogue.  His air and manner were rather those of a plain, well-informed man of business, not unaccustomed to public speaking, who had some views on the subject under discussion which he desired to present, and asked the ear of the House for a short hour while he defined his position.