each its own separate and independent
authority, and also by the three powers combining together to bear and
forbear, endeavoring by harmonious concert with each other to avoid
those conflicts and clashings which must have arisen if independent
authority and independent action had been exerted by each or by all." He
entered into the history of the question, explaining that, though "each
branch of the Legislature retained its respective power of rejecting any
measure, the Commons had claimed from time immemorial particular
privileges in regard to particular measures, and especially the
exclusive right of determining matters connected with the taxation of
the people. They claimed for themselves, and denied to the Lords, the
right of originating, altering, or amending such measures; but, as long
ago as 1671, the Attorney-general, in a memorable conference between the
two Houses, had admitted that the Lords, though they could not originate
or amend, had, nevertheless, power to reject money-bills;" and this
admission he regarded as consistent with common-sense, for "it was well
known that, though the Commons contended for the right of originating
measures for the grant of supply, and of framing bills with that object,
according to their belief of what was best for the public interest, yet
such bills could not pass into law without the assent of the Lords; and
it was clear that an authority whose assent was necessary to give a
proposal the force of law, must, by the very nature of things, be at
liberty to dissent and refuse its sanction."

The committee had enumerated a large number of precedents (above thirty)
in which, since that conference, the Lords had rejected such bills; but
the cases were not in general exactly similar to that now under
consideration, since the bills which they had rejected had commonly, if
not in every case, been for the imposition and not for the repeal of a
tax; and in most cases some question of national policy had been
involved which had influenced their vote. But the view which Lord
Palmerston pressed on the House was that the present was "a case in
which party feelings ought to be cast aside. It was one in which higher
and larger interests than those of party were concerned, and in which
the course that the House now took would be a precedent to guide future
Parliaments." He pointed out, moreover, that the smallness of the
majority in the House of Commons had been to the Lords "some
encourageme