among others, one to strike out the clause which granted bounties.  But when the bill thus amended came back to the Commons, even those who disliked the principle of bounties resented this act of the Lords in meddling with that question, which they regarded as a violation of their peculiar and most cherished privilege, the exclusive right of dealing with questions of taxation.  Governor Pownall, who had charge of the bill, declared that the Lords had forgotten their duty when they interfered in raising money by the insertion of a clause that “no bounty should be paid upon exported corn.”  And on this ground he moved the rejection of the bill.[31] In the last chapter of this volume, a more fitting occasion for examining the rights and usages of the House of Lords with respect to money-bills will be furnished by a series of resolutions on the subject, moved by the Prime-minister of the day.  It is sufficient here to say that the power of rejection is manifestly so different from that of originating grants—­which is admitted to belong exclusively to the Commons—­and that there were so many precedents for the Lords having exerted this power of rejection in the course of the preceding century, that they probably never conceived that in so doing now they were committing any encroachment on the constitutional rights and privileges of the Lower House.  But on this occasion the ill-feeling previously existing between the two Houses may be thought to have predisposed the Commons to seek opportunity for a quarrel.  And there never was a case in which both parties in the House were more unanimous.  Governor Pownall called the rejection of the clause by the Lords “a flagrant encroachment upon the privileges of the House,” and affirmed that the Lords had “forgotten their duty.”  Burke termed it “a proof that the Lords did not understand the principles of the constitution, an invasion of a known and avowed right inherent in the House as the representatives of the people,” and expressed a hope that “they were not yet so infamous and abandoned as to relinquish this essential right,” or to submit to “the annihilation of all their authority.”  Others called it “an affront which the House was bound to resent, and the more imperatively in consequence of the absence of a good understanding between the two Houses.”  And the Speaker, Sir John Cust, went beyond all his brother members in violence, declaring that “he would do his part in the business, and toss the bill over the table.”  The bill was rejected nem. con., and the Speaker tossed it over the table, several of the members on both sides of the question kicking it as they went out;[32] and to such a pitch of exasperation had they worked themselves up, that “the Game Bill, in which the Lords had made alterations, was served in a similar manner,” though those alterations only referred to the penalties to be imposed for violations of the Game-law, and could by no stretch of ingenuity be connected with any question of taxation.