22nd May 1860_.

Viscount Palmerston presents his humble duty to your Majesty, and begs
to state that the Cabinet met to-day at half-past twelve to consider
what (if anything) should be done in consequence of the vote of the
House of Lords last night. Lord John Russell, Mr Gladstone, and Mr
Milner Gibson were desirous of finding some means of visiting their
displeasure upon the House of Lords, but it was shown to them that
the only measures which could be adopted were far too violent for the
occasion, and that the House of Commons itself is powerless in the
matter. When the Lords do anything inconsistent with the asserted
privileges of the House of Commons, as, for instance, inserting a
taxing Clause in a Bill sent up to them, or making an alteration in
a Money Bill sent up to them, the House of Commons is necessarily
invited to do something afterwards in the matter, by assenting to what
has been done by the Lords; and the Commons then assert their claimed
rights by throwing out the Bill thus, improperly, as the Commons say,
meddled with by the Lords; but when the Lords throw out a Bill there
is nothing for the Commons to do, as the Bill has vanished, and the
Commons are therefore furnished with no opportunity of asserting the
right which they may claim. But, moreover, the Commons have always
contended that the Lords cannot originate or alter a Money Bill, but
it has never been contended that the Lords may not reject a Money
Bill, though there are few instances of their having done so. These
arguments at length prevailed, and by four o'clock it was agreed that
Viscount Palmerston should give notice that he would on Thursday move
that a Committee be appointed to examine the Journals of the House
of Lords to ascertain the fate of the Bill thus lost like Sir John
Franklin, and that on Friday he should move the appointment of a
Committee to search for precedent applicable to the case. This course
it was thought, while binding the Government to no particular course,
would in some degree satisfy those who think some step necessary. The
measures mentioned, though it is fair to say not actually proposed,
were that Parliament should be prorogued, and reassembled either in
the Autumn or Winter, that then the same Bill should be brought
in, and be sent up to the Lords, and that if that Bill were again
rejected, Parliament should be dissolved. It was objected to all this,
that the case did not warrant such a course; that whether th