Footnote 24: This part of Mr Gladstone's financial scheme had lost a good deal of its early popularity: it had only passed the third reading in the Commons by the small majority of nine, and the Premier had already told the Queen that the Peers would perform a public service by rejecting it. The majority against it in the House of Lords was 89.
Viscount Palmerston to Queen Victoria.
THE HOUSE OF LORDS AND MONEY BILLS
94 Piccadilly, 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 examineCOMMITTEE OF THE COMMONS 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 the Lords have or have not overstepped their proper functions, the opinion of the great majority of the public is that the Lords have done a right and useful thing (in confirmation of which it may be stated that the people in the gallery of the House of Lords are said to have joined in the cheers which broke out when the numbers of the division were announced).
Viscount Palmerston, at the meeting of the House, gave notice accordingly that he should on Thursday move for a Committee to search the Lords' Journals—a usual form of motion; and that he should on Friday move to appoint a Committee to search for precedents in order to ascertain facts; but he added that he did not take this course with any view of hostility towards the House of Lords. An attempt was made by Mr Whalley and Mr Digby Seymour to set up a complaint that this was not the sort of proceeding which the gravity of the occasion required, but this endeavour was put down by an unmistakable manifestation of a contrary opinion by the rest of the House....
Queen Victoria to the Duke of Somerset.
Buckingham Palace, 29th June 1860.
Before sanctioning the proposed change in the Naval Uniform,25 the Queen wishes to know what the State occasions are on which the full dress is to be worn. The officers generally wear an undress without epaulettes, which in consequence are of little inconvenience to them. She has always understood the Service to cling very much to its present uniform, and she would be sorry to shock their feelings.
Footnote 25: The principal change proposed was that full dress should cease to be obligatory at Courts-Martial.