The Sun.
London, England, 1860-06-08 00:00:00

THE PAPER DUTIES.

A public meeting in opposition to the course
adopted by the House of Lords with regard to the
repeal of this tax was held last evening at the
London Tavern ; Mr. James White in the chair.
The attendance was numerous, and among others
on the platform were Sergeant Parry, Mr. Morley,
Mr. A. H. Dymond, Mr. Washington Wilks, Mr.
Taylor, Mr. Fry, Dr. Challis, Mr. G. Thomp-
son, &c.
Communications were read from Sir James Duke,
M.P., Mr. E. James, M.P., and others, expressing
regret at not being able to attend, but concurring
in the objects of the meeting, as was a letter from
Lord John Russell.

The CHAIRMAN, in opening the proceedings, con-
sidered that the act of the House of Lords was an
aggressive measure against the declared wishes of
the representatives of the people. The Lords had
passed the penny Income-tax, and had refused the
repeal of that which was to have been the equiva-
lent—the duty on paper. Just before he came to
the meeting he had referred to Mr. Erskine May's
work on the forms and usages of Parliament, and
on turning to chapter 15, referring to the rights of
the House of Commons, he found it stated that all
aids of supply must be given by the House of Com-
mons. This gentleman had been already examined
by the Committee on Precedents, and he had no
doubt that his testimony would confirm his repu-
tation as a Parliamentary lawyer. If further con-
firmation was necessary, he might refer to the
Queen's Speech in opening Parliament. They
would remember that her Majesty told the House
of Commons, not the House of Lords, that the esti-
mates Would be laid before them. Besides this, all
money bills in their attestation declared that they
were the sole gift of the House of Commons ; and
the Queen's Speech in closing the session acknow-
ledged the same principle; and indeed it was ne-
cessary that it should be so, or all commercial trans-
actions in which duties were involved would be
checked, whenever bills imposing or removing tax-
ation were introduced, until it was known what
course the House of Lords would take
concerning them. Having referred to a let-
ter from Mr. Cobden, which appeared in the even-
ing paper of that day, the chairman went on to say,
Mr. Cobden's letter drew his attention to the struggle
which took place 200 years ago on the subject of
ship money. It was argued 12 days before the
Exchequer, and 10 judges had decided that the
Crown had the power to levy it ; while two, to their
immortal honour, decided against it. At the pre-
sent day he believed there were only two lawyers
who upheld the doctrine for which the House of
Lords contended—viz., Lords Lyndhurst and
Chelm,ford. He need not refer to the end of the..
struggle he had just alluded to, but they wculd
recollect it terminated in a surgical operation in
front of Whitehall, which, after all, he believed
was a most salutary operation. ' (Question.) The
glory of the country was not in its enterprise or its
wealth, or its power, but in that liberty which we
inherited from our forefathers. (Cheers.) He
hoped the result of that meeting would be such a
declaration of the will of the people as would con-
vince the Lords that there was no apathy existing
in the country on this subject. Then there would
be no occasion in this country to say—
" 11l fares the land to wasting ills a prey,
When wealth accumulates and men decay." (Cheers.)
Mr. SAMUEL MORLEY said he had been requested
to move the following resolution :
" That it is the immemorial right of the British people
to be taxed only with their own consent, by and through
their own representatives in the Commons House of
Parliament. That the refwal of the Manse of Lords to
remit a tax abolished by the representatives of the people
is in direct contravention of that right, and is, in fact, an
unscrur ulous attempt to impose taxation on the sole autho-
rity of the House of Lords. That this meeting therefore
calls upon their countrymen to protest against so flagrant a
violation of their constitutional rights."
He did not think any elaborate statement from him
was necessary to satisfy the meeting of the impor-
tance of the question, and he would merely add his
protest to those which had been already made.
The House of Commons had determined on the
remission of the Paper Duty, and the House of
Lords had said it should not be abolished. He
would admit that a veto rested in the Crown, but
he also believed that if that veto were exercised it
would make thoughtful men anxious. He believed
that Mr. Gladstone was prepared to assist in the
adjustment of taxation on property, and also that
the Earl of Derby was opposed to the reduction of
expenditure. It was his opinion that the views of
such men as John Bright would tell on the pros-
perity of the country and on the great mass of their
fellow-countrymen. In conclusion, he urged that
the people must depend upon themselves, and then
they would know on whom to rely.
Mr. W. LEAF seconded the motion.

Mr. J. K. FRY having supported it,
Mr. NicnoL endeavoured to move an amendment
apparently opposed to the wishes of the meeting,
as he was compelled to retire amid much noise and
confusion.

Mr. PRICE and Mr. HICKS also endeavoured to
address the meeting in opposition to the views of
the previous speakers, but, on the question being
put from the Chair whether they should be heard,
it was decided in the negative.
Mr. TAYLOR moved the second resolution :
" That the following petition to the House of Commons be
signed by the chairman on behalf of this meeting:—
"'That from time immemorial it has always been the
right of the British people to be taxed only with their own
consent, by and through their own representatives in the
Commons House of Parliament. That the refusal of the
House of Lords to remit a tax abolished by the people's re-
presentatives is in direct contravention of that right, and
is, in fact, an attempt on the part of the Peers to impose
taxation by their own sole authority. Your petitioners
therefore pray your hon. house to take effectual measures
to resist so flagrant a violation of the privileges of your hon.
house, and of the rights of the people.' "
and referred to the attacks which, he said, had
been
made on Mr. Bright, both by the press and in the
House of Commons.
Three cheers for Mr. Bright having been given,
Mr. THOMPSON seconded the motion, which was
agreed to.
On the motion of Mr. CONNELL, seconded by Dr.
CHALLIS, it was agreed that Lords Palmerston and
Russell be requested to present the petition.
The meeting separated after the usual compli-
ment to the chairman.