although the Lords have exercised the power of rejecting bills
of several descriptions relating to taxation by negativing the whole,
yet the exercise of that power by them has not been frequent, and is
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.

"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