But in 1783, in the time of the Coalition Ministry, the peers having made amendments on the American Intercourse Bill, "the Speaker observed that, as the bill empowered the crown to impose duties, it was, strictly speaking, a money-bill, and therefore the House could not, consistently with its own orders, suffer the Lords to make any amendments on it, and he recommended that the consideration of their amendments should be postponed for three months, and in the mean time a new bill framed according to the Lords' amendments should be passed." The recommendation was approved by Mr.Pitt, as leader of the Opposition, and approved and acted on by Mr.Fox, as leader of the ministry in that House.

But, at the same time, Mr.Fox fully admitted the right of the Lords to discuss such questions, "for it would be very absurd indeed to send a loan bill to the Lords for their concurrence, and at the same time deprive them of the right of deliberation.

To lay down plans and schemes for loans belonged solely to the Commons; and he was willing, therefore, that the amended bill should be rejected, though he was of opinion that the order of the House respecting money-bills was often too strictly construed." And he immediately moved for leave to bring in a new bill, which was verbatim the same with the amended bill sent down by the Lords .-- _Parliamentary History_, xxiii., 895.

The question was revived in the present reign, on the refusal of the Lords to concur in the abolition of the duty on paper, when the whole subject was discussed with such elaborate minuteness, and with so much more command of temper than was shown on the present occasion, that it will be better to defer the examination of the principle involved till we come to the history of that transaction.] [Footnote 32: "Parliamentary History," xvii., 515.].