The Sun.
London, England, 1860-05-26 00:00:00

TIIE PAPER DUTIES.

(From the Times.)
The House of Commons has only done what
everybody expected, and every reasonable being
would have advised, in taking no more decisive step
on the late decision of the Lords than the appoint-
ment of a Committee to inquire into precedents re-
lating to money bills. Of the other courses sug-
gested last night it is enough to say that they wculd
have been thought very ridiculous or outrageous.
According to Mr.. Edwin James, inasmuch as the
house had once immediately censured a decision of
the Lords upon a bill that was not a money bill, or
at all like one, therefore it ought with equal promp-
titude to take in hand the decision of the Lords
upon a bill which, in Mr. E. James's opinion,' is a
money bill, and nothing else. Mr. Duncombe pro-
posed that the, house should take the Lords at their
word, and contrive that Parliament should be
found sitting in the middle of November, when, of
course, the Lords would be bound to read the bill a
second time. Mr. Bright, not being provided with
any expedient brilliant enough to compare with
this, and not seeing his way out of the difficulty,
proposed the moderate course of adjourning the
debate to next Thursday, by which time some
thirty gentlemen will have occupied the Whitsun
holidays in the preparation of long speeches. Lord
John Russell, with something like a foregone
conclusion of the result, and with some Parlia-
mentary .definitions and divisions which read
like an address to a grand jury, found suffi-
cient matter for criticism in these propositions,
and gave his opinion for further inquiry. When,
however he distinguished between Money Bills
that had political character and those that were
merely for Supply, and assigned the Bill just re-
jected to the latter class, we can only say that he
has unwittingly contributed a new argument for
inquiry and deliberation. As nothing can be done
till Thursday, no time will be lost by the proposed
addition of two "independent" members to the
Committee on that day, and twenty-one gentlemen
enjoying the suffrages of all parties, and represent-
ing their opiniens, will then be able to supply the
House with a common stock of information bearing
upon this matter. Notwithstanding the stigma of
a roving cdramission which Mr. Digby Seymour
has attempted to throw on the Committee, no other
course was open than to leave it the largest reason-
able field of inquiry. To liMit that inquiry in such
a way as not to anticipate the result would have
cost the house needless time and trouble. As it is,
we are to have a complete view of the Parliamen-
tary, theory of Money Bills, in the most compre-
hensive sense of the term.

An appeal to the common sense of the country,
as the true arbiter of the question, is no mere topic
of persuasion, and can hardly be called our own.
Mr. Bright himself wonders how it is that the
people of England most unaccountably do not care
a straw for the bill and its treatment by the Lords.
England has not been moved from its depths and
stirred from one end to the other. There has
been a mysterious meeting of delegates some-
where within the range of Mr. Duncombe's
peculiar observation, but otherwise there has
been no more, stir or expression of opinion than if
a railway bill had been lost for want of compliance
with standing orders. Mr. Bright is at a loss to
explain a fact which we will venture to say he is
the only man in England who has not taken as a
matter of coarse. He really does us much more
honour, than we deserve, and immensely overrates
our influence, when he informs the house that it is
our sophistry that has mesmerised the nation into
this gross insensibility to its wrongs. Old-fashioned
as we are, obsolete as are our viavgs4 selfish and ' •
as our motives must be, mistaken in every way, we
have, nevertheless, had the power, he says, to lull
am mire ocvan of political passion into the
sweetest tranquillity. Vain the gathering of the
multitude in St. Martin's-hall and provincial Town-
halls ! Vain the appeal to the metropolitan Briton,
" Will you permit Lord Derby to tax you ?" A
single leader of the Mites, says Mr. Bright, had
hushed the rising storm, and sung a lullaby over
the smothered indignation of thirty millions. This
is a power we frankly say we never pretended to;
we do not claim it
; we do not now detect its ope-
ration; what is more, we do not even desire it. It
would indeed be an ill day for England when it
lay at the mercy of one pen, or any hundred pens
when it either could be roused to fury by a leaded
column, or depended on that precarious interposi-
tion for its safety from downright madness. No,
Mr. Bright, we will be modest; we blush to be
so bepraised ; but we really have no right to
let this pass as our work; It is England that sees
how the truth lies, and that will not rise into revo-
lution because the Lords have exercised a sound
discretion, and thrown out an ill timed bill. The
Lords knew well that the country was with them.
The truth is that this is not a mere Money Bill,
but a political question. Otherwise, how came it
to pass that Mr. Bright, alone in the whole country,
should be anxious to thrust a million and a quarter
into the Chancellor of the Exchequer's pocket?
That is not his wont, nor indeed is it ours. But
the gradual substitution of income:tax for indirect
taxes, and the reimposition of a war tax when no
reason could be assigned for it, except to gratify
some sentimental expectations for the year 1860—
all this is a political question. Mr. Bright is aware
it has been suggested lately more than once to
raise the, income-tax to a height that shall entirely
supersede indirect taxation; to place the represen-
tation in the hands of those who do net pay the
income-tax; and, finally, to declare the House of
Lords an anomaly in the constitution. Such pro-
posals have much more right to be considered a
'
whole than Mr. Gladstone's Budget, which, by the
thevery
substitutionter is a
0 of
multitudelncome-tax offormeasures.pap
Buter
Duty
the only measure under consideration, we shall
be backed by all England in calling it a poli-
tical change. It is a shifting of burdens that
would certainly tell largely on the powers and
destinies of the State and the character' of the
people. It is not a question of a million or
not, but whether taxation shall be levied from
this class or that class, in this form or that form.
The whole argument for the repeal of the Paper
Duty disdained the very character now asserted for

it, as a mere matter of money. It raises the ques-
tion above money. But it is also a political ques-
tion whether just now we are to leave the Exche-
quer empty, and allow millions of Exchequer-bonds
to come in one after the other, without any provi-
sion for their liquidation, except the spendthrift
trick of issuing new bonds in their place. The
whole affair is political rather than financial, and if
financial, only so foil political considerations. There
is here no-constitutional jealousy in question. The
Lords are not wanting to increase the power of the
Crown, and render it independent of the Lower
House. The Commons may do what they please
with the money which the Lords have obligingly
compelled them to keep in their hands. But this
is a political affair, and if the House of Lords ever
was permitted to reject a bill complicated with
political considerations, it never had a better case
for it than now.

(From the .71forntng Post.)
Last night, after considerable discussion, the
House of Commons appointed a select. committee
" to search the journals of both Houses of Parlia-
ment in order to ascertain and report on the
practice of each house with regard to the several
descriptions of money bills imposing or repealing
taxation." It is difficult to conceive upon what
grounds a motion so reammable and necessary in
itself should have encountered- the slightest oppo-
sition. If there exist a doubt as to the right of
the House of Lords to reject a money bill, reason
would surely seem to dictate, as a necessary pre-
liminary, the institution of an inquiry, the object of
which would be to illustrate the customary law of
Parliament by the decisions of former days. But this
is not the opinion of Mr. Edwin James, Mr. Thomas
Dancombe, and Mr. Bright.. These gentlemen de-
sire to provoke a conflict between the two Houses in
relation to a subject which excites no public interest
at a time when, from want of information, no per-
son can venture to assert-with confidence that the
House of Lords has exceeded its privileges. Mr.
Duncombe, who, like all extreme Liberals, is a great
stickler for the political supremacy of the House of
Commons, proposed an amendment, which, if ac-
cepted, would altogether have ignored one of the
most important and well-defined prerogatives of the
Crown.- . The. hon. gentleman sap the Loran have

only postponed the second reading of the Paper
• Duties Bill for six months—therefore Parliament
ought not to be adjourned beyond November next,
" when a 'further opportunity would be afforded to
the House of Lords for comidcring whether the said
bill Might, not then be advantOgrously nreed to."
In other words, the House of Commons isrto dictate
to, the Sovereign the time at which Parliament is to
meet, and also, to tell the House of Lords that, after
six months' stipendiary agitation', Mr: Duncombe
hopes that the public mind will become sufficiently
angry and excited to act upon.and-eocrue the Upper
House. No indications of such a charaeter are yet ap-
parent out of doors, and in the House of COmmons
the general- tone last night was firm ancrrespeetful
to the Peers, and at the same time consistent
with the dignity and independence of the represen-
tatives of the pf:ople. Mr. Bright adopted a line of
opposition similarin character, hut not so dilatory
and unconstitutional in its effects. Ile 1 nposed to
adjourn the discussion to next Thursday, when the
houSe will reassemble after the Whitsuntide recess.
But Mr. Bright must surely forget that such a
course would delay, if not defeat, the object which
he profesves to have in view. He holds the' opinion
that the House of Lords has overstepped its privi-
lege, and he wishes the Commons to come to this
conclusion. The question whether it be, regarded
as one of customary law or of principle cannot be
decided without investigation and inquiry. If it
should turn out that Mr. Bright's contention is
right, then the recourse to precedents will sustain
and fortify his argument—one which at present
rests upon no foundation beyond rash assertion—
and the House of Commons would have compara-
tively little difficulty in establishing its exclusive
privilege to originate, amend, and pass money bills.
We, however, are inclined to suspect that if such
a resolution were come to the veto of.the Sovereign,'
which in modern times has been rarely exercised,
would form the next point of attack. The mode-
ration and 'good sense of the house were too mani-
festly displayed in favour. of inquiry to give either
Mr. Thomas Duncombe or Mr. Bright the slightest
chance of success, and therefore those gentlemen
wisely. permitted Lord Palmerston's motion to be
carried, merely with the addition of two members
taken from below the gangway, making the num-
ber of the committee twenty-one instead of nine-
teen.

Of course it is premature to speculate upon the
results of the inquiry, but we may be permitted to
express the opinion that it will leave the question
exactly where it stands at present. Hatsell, in deal-
ing with the exclusive right of the Commons to
grant aids and taxes to the Ci own, • sayS—" In
whatever mode the Lords have at- any time at.
tempted to invade this right, the Commons have
uniformly and rigorously opposed the attempt ;
and have asserted and maintained this claim
through such a long and various course of prece-
dents, particularly from the time of
,the Restora
tion to the begiinnink of this century, that the
,lords have- desisted either from beginning any bill,
or making amendments to bills passed by the
Commons, which, either, in the forth of positive
taxes or-pecuniary penalties, or in any other shape,
might, by construction, be considered• as imposing
burdens upon the people." If the Lords,. ex eon-
cessis, cannot originate or amend money bills—and
as we all know as a matter of fact that no measure
of any kind can become law without the csnsent of
the three branches of the Legislature—the con-
clusion is irresistible that as the Lords have the
power of assent they must also possess the con-
verse or correlative right of rejection. What
discretionary jurisdiction is the Upper House to
have in -relation to this species of legislation if
it is simply to register the financial edicts of
the, Commons ? We believe that, when all the
precedents which are to be found in .thci ournals
have been ransacked, no case can be produced
which will support the views of Mr. Bright and
his two coadjutors, Mr. Thomas Duncombe and Mr.
Edwin James. The inquiry is judicial in its nature,
one necessarily dependent urmi precedent and
authority, and must therefore be pursned, as Lord
J. Russell last night remarked, "in the beaten
paths of the constitution." Happily no pal ty in•
terest is involved in the question, and happily the
public have no desire to -witness a wholly unneces-
sary conflict between the two branches of the
Legislature. The sooner the dispute is allowed to
subside the better opportunity will the opponents
ilia paper duties have of obtaining the object
which they so loudly and so zealously profess to
have at heart.

(From the liforreing Herald.)
Last night's brief discussion on the practice of
Parliament in regard to bills for imposing or repeal-
ing taxation was not of a nature to inspire Mr.
Bright with any now hope of coll"sion and disturb-
bance. It was scarcely to be expected, after all the
nonsense that has been talked about the violation
of the rights of the Lower House, that a Liberal
Premier should not take some step to save his cre-
dit; and we do full justice to Lo:d. Palmerston's
sagacity in adopting a course which commits him
to no result and which is admirably calculated to
satisfy the amour proprc of the e0111111011:3, at the
same time that it avoids any attack upon the dig-
nity of the Peers. It may suit the metropolitan
members to raise a great cry about the alleged in-
sult to popular sovereignty ; but as in this instance
popular clamour seems to be principally confined to
aportion of the press pecularly interested in obtaining
cheap paper, the backers of our modern Hampdens
are likely to be very few in number, and we antici-
pate no dangerous results from the serious auguries
with which they seek to awe the country. Moreover,
Mr. Bright and his friends have once more found
themselves thoroughly impractical. Mr. buncombe
moved an amendment which was prima facie
too absurd to he seriously considered, but which
certainly far surpassed the resolution of the Lords
in confidencei and audacity, and deservedly called
down the remonstrance of that lover of the consti-
tution, Lord John Russell. Mr. Bright was still
more impracticable in moving the adjournment of
the debate, although all that Lord Palmerston asked
for *was a committee of inquiry, as if the five days
that elapse between yesterday and next Thursday
would bring down the haughty Peers on their
knees at the feet of the Lower House, or as if Lord
Palmerston himself would by that time have been
inspired by the encouragement of the cheap press
to throw down the gauntlet before the Lords, and
. completely play the demagogue's game by kindling
a dangerous agitation. What, in fact, could Mr.
Bright propose ? We have had hints of his inten-
tions from the columns of his great ally in the press,
and we should probably, under his auspices, have
found ourselves committed to a hopelesi breach
between the Lords and Commons, which could only
have resulted in perilling the authority of both.
As it is, the choice of the committee saving the
presence of Mr. Bright, induces a reasonable belief
in its impartiality, and we have too much respect
for the judgment of the House of Commons not to
infer that it will find means to set the question at
rest without the slightest regard to the interested
protests of the member for Birmingham. Strictly
speaking, all doubt about the privileges of the
House of Lords was removed by Lord Lyndhurst's
speech—that great authority who was extolled
with all the eulogistic powers of Mr. Bright's organ
on the one day, and denounced with all the depth
of its abuse the next. But something it was ne-
cessary to do in order to bind up the wounds of the
Birmingham demagogue, and to soothe the fiery
indignation of the Chancellor of the Exchequer.
The committee, on the whole very fairly chosen, is
not likely to perpetuate the feeling of jealousy that
now exists. Mr. Bright knows this, and is furious.
But in proportion to his disappointment will be the
satisfaction of every prudent politician and every
lover of peace and order.

(From the Daily. News.)

The short debate in the House of Commons last
night on Lord Palmerston's motion for a committee
to inquire into precedents as to the control of money
bills would tend to reassure those who had begun
to fear that both the house and the Government
were disposed to treat a great constitutional ques.
tion in a careless and perfunctory manner. That
this feeling existed and was daily becoming more
deep and general, is unquestionable. Tl!,. t t
Mr. Bright presented last night from GCVeI.:II places
in Lancashire illustrate the rising wave of p,pular
dissatisfaction and alarm at the appal cut apathy
of the Commons. The prayer of these petitions is,
"that the house, will preserve its privilege and pre-
rogative of determining the taxation or the coun-
try." No such petitions as thcle hav:7, b; en pre-
sented to Parliament in our time, or in that of our
forefathers for many generations. Indeed there has
rarely been any necessity to quicken the zeal of the
house on such a point. It has usually shown itself
keenly alive to its privileges, and prompt and ener-
getic in defending them.
.Any appearance of
warmness, therefore, on such a vital question of
priVilege as the right.of ;taxation would naturally
tend to rouse the watchful jealousy of,th?' sounttyi,
There is no doubt that this feeling would have'
been spread far more generally had not the two
questions raised by the vote of the Lords on
day night, been especially at first very mac 4 mixed
up and, _ceufouucled in. the public mind.. The kucta

financial question involved in that Vote is of com-
paratively 'small importance. Whether the paper
duty 'shall bo repealed this year or next is a question
not of principle but of expediency. All are agreed
that it is a bad-tax, which ought to be'abOlished at
the earliest moment; but Many differ 0.5, to ;whet her
that moment is now or twelve months hence.. This
question is ofrlimited and temporary.iriterr-st, and
however a'reerilly we may desire to hare the duty
relYoved at once, it WOUld he
.quite impossible to
raise the co Into-, or create any great excitement
on the point. The case is very different, howeve,-,
with regard to 'the constitutional question raised
by the vote of Monday night. That is of the very
utmost gravity and importance. The right of the
representatives of the people to determine abso-
lutely the taxation of the country is the you bul-
- wadi. of our national freedom. Any attempted
invasion of this sacred right is not a question of
limited' or temporary moment. -It touches the
essence of the constitution, and may affect-not only
the present generation but the whole future for-
tunes of England. As, soon as this is clearly seen,
as soon 'as the constitutional question is disen-
tangled from the financial one, the gravity of the
proceedings in the House of Lords on Monday
evening bOomes at once apparent. At first, as we
haie said. there was some slight confusion, but the
country is already awake to the true bearings of
the case, and as these are more clearly perceived;
the popular voice will be raised in unanimous pro-
test against the establishment of any dangerous or
unconstitutional precedent.

POLICE INTELLIGENC.E.-Miy 25.

GUILDHALL.—Miss Fray, a young, lady wl)o
has figured repeatedly before the public in actions
against Lord and Lady Zetlaud; in *hose employ
she formerly was, as well as against her counsel
and, attorneys for negligence in the conduct of her
affairs in the different actions in which she has been
engaged, applied on Wednesday to Alderman Salo-
. mons for a summons against the matron of White-
cross-street Prison for cruel treatment and threats
againSf her life while a prisoner for debt under her
control.
Alderman Salomons inquired the nature of the
cruelty, and threati complained of.
Miss Fray said she was incarcerated in White-
cross-street Prison on the 2d of December last, and
on the following day she was taken very ill, and in
that state locked up for a whole day and a night
with not even a glass of cold water, although she
was at the time suffering from inflammation of the
lungs. Indeed, such was the neglect she experi-
enced that slie was kept' for weeks together with-
out butter,- tea, sugar, and, in fact, proper food;
and she was 'even denied the use of warm water,
which the state of her health required. With a
cancer in -her mouth, which she was compelled to
lance herself, the only food she could take was
withheld,-and having no money she was unable to
procure what she required beyond the county allow-
ance. - -

Alderman Salomons asked her -why she had not
applied to Colonel Hicks, the governor.
Miss Fray said_ she had repeatedly done so, and
Colonel Hicks assured-her that it was his wish that
:she should be properly treated, but nothing was
done, and she was eventually compelled. to apply
to friends outside for assistance to obtain the means
of existence. This state of things continued until
the 25th of February last, when the matron shook
her fist in her face, and made use of the most mur
derous threats towards her, saying that she (Miss
Fray) had lost her character, and that she would
tear her to,pieces,.limb from limb, tear her eyes
out of the sockets, and intimated she would soon
he in a much worse place than that—meaning
Newgate. For nine days she was very ill, during
which time she had nothing but the county allow-
ance, and when she refused the doctor's medicine,
the matron did all in her power to prevent her
having the medicine she purchased with money
furnished by her friends.
Alderman Salomons asked her if any inquiry
had taken place..
Miss Fray said that a slanderous letter was
written by a friend of the matron, and the Lord
Mayor and-Alderman Hale attended and• investi-
gated the charges. niade in that letter against her
(Miss Fru), which proved to ;have no foundation,
since which the matron had altered her conduct
towards her.

Alderman Salomons wished to know if she had
complained to the prison inspectors.
Miss Fray said she had written to the Secretary
of State, and Mr. Perry, one of the inspeetors,,had
visited the prison, but no steps had been taken in
the matter., She had also seen the Lord Mayor,
who requegteil her to send him the details of her
complaints in writing, and she had done so ; but
fearing that the time limited by law -for making
her complaint would expire, and so deprive her of
the ordinary remedy in the event of no other in-
quiry taking place, she applied for a summons to
have the matter investigated here.
_Alderman Salomons said he did not like to grant
a summons in such a case without making inquiry,
and he would therefore decide on Friday what
course he would adopt.
After the above application was made the de-
puty-governor of Whitecross-street Prison attended
at the court, and was closeted with the chief clerk
for nearly an hour, and on the opening of the court
he had a private interview with the alderman and
the chief clerk, and at the expiration of a quarter
of an hour the parties came into court, when
Alderman Salomons, addressing Miss Fray, said
that, Col. Hicks being out of town, Mr. Watts, the
deputy-governor, was present to hear her complaint
against the matron and to answer it.
Miss Fray, having reiterated her cause of com-
plaint against the matron, said she also had to
make complaint against the governor and doctor
of the prison, but at present she only asked for a
summons against the matron. When she wrote
to the Secretary of State, Mr. Sheriff Phillips and
Mr. Perry, the prison inspector, came, and the
latter told her that it was a case for the magistrates.
Alderman Salomons could not understand why
the matrons should have any antipathy towards
any prisetuir under her care.
Miss Fray said it arose from the fact of her
catching her in the act of opening a letter which
she (Miss Fray) wrote to the governor, asking him
to procure her a habeas, in order that she might
attend before a judge at chambers in an action for
which she received notice on the 18th of February.
She got no answer to that letter, and she therefore
wrote a second time, representing that unless she
obtained the habeas she would lose her case ; but
she received no answer until it was too late, and
judgment was given against her by default. This
was •on a Saturday, and on the Sunday she saw
Col. Hicks, and he told her she could n*t have a
habeas, not having applied for it in the manner
prescribed for prisoners in the county side. She
said she did not intend to apply for anything at the
prison expense after she had been starved for so
many weeks, and having money sufficient of her
own she was prepared to pay for a habeas ; but
not obtaining it, she lost her action.
Mr. Watts said he was not present when Mr.
Perry and the visiting magistrates saw Miss Fray,
and knew nothing therefore of what took place at
either interview. Mr. Perry did not mention any
complaint, nor did he report any ; but the governor
had seen Miss Fray on several occasions in the pre-
sence of the matron.

Miss Fray said she reported everything she com-
plained of to Col. Hicks, but not obtaining pro-
tection from him, she was obliged to have recourse
to other means.

Alderman. Salomons said he presumed that the
governor made-it a rule to see all the prisoners daily.
Mr. Watts said that was not the case, but any
person could see the governor upon applying either
personally or in writing. He was, however, fre-
quently. among them.
Miss Fray said it was not so.
Mr. Watts said if any application were made to
him personally at the office, he should not require
any written notice.
• Miss F: ay said she believed Mr. Watts, as he
was the ouly • gentleman from whom she had re-
ceiN-ed auy humane treatment.
Alderman Salomons said if he granted the sum-
MOW; against the matron he could not see how it
could serve the applicant.
Mi.is Fray said she locked her up, while other
prisoners were allowed greater liberty ; and she
had been informed that the law of the land did not
allow any one to remain a single night under threats
against the life without a remedy.
• Mr. Watts said that all the prisoners were locked
up at night.
Miss Fray said she could not state the whole of
her complaint, unless the case w'as thoroughly in-
vestigated, as it would occupy too much time. She
would, however, mention that the part of the prison
she was confined in was infested with body vermin,
`introduced by a favourite of the. matron ; and al-
!though the bedding, clothing, .and even the food
.were tainted with the presence of such vermin, the
matron would not permit any report to be made, in
order that it might be cleansed.
Mr. Watts said the prison had been thoroughly
cleansed.