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.