The Sun. — London, England, 1842-04-08 00:00:00

I: c iPIRIT of the PUBLIC JOURNALS. FROM THE EVENING PAPEES OF YESTERDAY. GL0113.E.-:—Wh en Sir Robert Peel prescribed the bitter pill of the income tax, he offered the tariff as a lump of s ugar to be taken with-or immediately after it ; and it is therefore drasirable to know—first, v:hether -we are to have the • tariff in its promised shape ; and secondly, whether, when it is obtained, it will prove a corrective to the nausea occasioned-by the measure with which it is accompanied. The question .was pertinently put to Sir Robert Peel, whether cc it had crossed his mind" to postpone the consideration of the tariff? And the Premier replied that it had not ; though he_ added, that as many important interests would be seriously affected by the alterations propOied,. it was considered but just to give the parties an opportunity to have the subject, duly weigned before the measure was introduced, rn orikr that the tariff might undergo such chan ;es as c :mann stances seemed to demand.'" The Premior is at presenL the Tory oracle, and he keeps up the oracular charac ter extremely well, as far as ambiguity is concerned, for the celebrated to fEacide Romanos vincere pos7., was no-more calculated to puzzle the son of iEacus; as to whether' the Romans should conquer 11:m or he the Romans,: than is the answer of Sir Robert well adapted to encourage thP.people-who ask for cheap food,' or to sa , tain the hopes.of the monopolists. Allowing than the taz . lff would be, a. boon to the masses, it is yet very problematical,.from the Premier's declaration on Monday night, whether the nation is to have, the full benefit of it in the shape in which it vias at first pro pe;-1, or whether, in consideration to the " important interests that are seriously affected by .it,"such changes are to be made as will protect the agricul tnraCat the expense of the general interest. It is diffi cult to 'say whether the modifications he is willing to make will be in a right or a wrong direction, with regard to their effect on the public good ; his observa tions of Tucaday' ni g ht may be designed either to cl - ijole the landed interest into a.belief that he intends to maintain much of the monopoly that the tariff would have partly broken down, or, in the event of his eventually succumbing to the party that still lie:Ts the sword suspended over his head, he may in tend to refer the country hereafter to . the declaration made last night' as a proof of his consistency. STAXDAED.--The House was for the, greater part of the evening occdpied in Committee upon Lord 2 , lahort's "•Copyrtght Bill." Upon the reading of the third clause as follows : " That the copyright in erN-y book which shall, after the passing of this Act, be published 'in the lifetime ofits author, shall endure -for the natural life of such author, and for the further term of 25 years, Commeneing at the time of his death, and shall be the property of such author-and -his assigns Provided always, That in no case shall the whole term be less than 28 years ; and that the copyri g ht i n every b oo k wh i c h shall be pubished • alter the death of its author shall endure for the term of 30 years from the first publication thereof, and shall be the property of the proprietor of the manuscript from which such book shall be first published and his assigns." Ldrd'Alahon addressed the House at considerable . length, and' with great force. His Lordship replied to moat of the arguments which had been ad vanced against a similar measure when proposed by Mr. Sergeant Talfourd, particularly to the pre tence that the suppression. of valuable boas might be thee - effect of allowing a longer enjoyment of copyright, showing that the danger supposed to Ibe threatened to Richardson's works, for example, amounted to no more than this—that a pious clergyman, a descendant of th e nove li s t , had declared that he had never read the works of his ancestor, or any other works of the same class. This was conclusive as to the particular objection ; but we think that Lord Mahon might have gone a great deal further. If a man's books are in any sense his property, the public has no more right to inquire whether he shall . use it, or squander it, or lock it up, than it has to control his mode of disposing of any other property —no more right than it has to forbid a favourite actor, or a favourite fiddler or sing to retire from his profession; such tyrannical prohibitions, by the way, were, among the earliest subjects of complaint against the tyrant Roman Emperors. The case, is, however, really worse as regards books. Men may for the best rea sons wish to extinguish for ever the memory of books which, surviving them,. may cause them, as itrwere, "to siu in their graves." Theodore Beza wrote licen tious verses in his youth : can there he a doubt that that good man, as he afterwards became, would "in . dying wish to blot" out these licentious verses ? But this he could not do, without having over them the I right of an absolute proprietor. ELECTION COMMITTEES. (Continued from our Afternoon Edition of yesterday. ) WIGAN. Mr. Ilillyard replied to Slade, and.tho room was cleared. The Committee haknot - decided when-itxwas announced that the Speaker was at praiers. The parties, thereforepstand as they did yesterday. GREAT M A RLO W. Mr. AusTEN called evidence on,the.part of the sitting Mem ber to rebut that which had been brought forward by the Counsel for the petitioner. Amongst others, Mr. Richard Gibbons, who was examined on Tuesday last, was called by Mr. Austen to support Movie's vote. Having stated in the course of his examina tion that he had solicited - PoTie's vote, who promised him to give it in favour of Sir W. Clayton, the short-hand writer's notes of Tuesday's proceedings were read, when there appeared a material discrepancy between the eridence of the witness on Tuesday and that which he now gave. The witness said that he had committed a mistake in the evi deuce he had given on Tuesday. Sir W.- HEATIICOTE sail that circumstances had occurred which rendered it necessary that the room should be cleared. The room was then cleared, and the following resolutions were come to, which were ordered to be reported this evening to the House : " That in the opinion of this Committee Richard Gibbons has been guilty of wilfully giving false evidence in the ela minat ion before them. " That the minutes of the evidence of the said R. Gibbons he reported to the House without delay. " That the Chairman do, by warrant under his hand, com mit the said R. Gibbons to the custody of the Sergeant -at- Arms, to await the pleasure of the House." 111/. Gibbons was then taken into the custody of the Ser geant-at-Arms. Other witnesses were then produced, who were under cx• amination when it was announced that the Speaker was a prayers. _ _ - The Sitting Mcmkr therefore still continues in a majori cf one. THE THREE-FOLD CEREMONY.—On Monday week, the Rev. Mr. Faussett, of Cropthorne, in this county. was called upon to marry a female of the Kite species to a Knight of the village, which office he had no sooner performed, thin, turning t o another pago of the Prayer Book, her read the ser vice for the Churchin.,b of Women, an d conc l u d e d his. duties by Chr:st eni ng th e fair bride's child ! Worcestershire Chronicle. EXTRNORDINARY unfortunate man was found dead with a copy of Punch in his hand. It was proved that he had been reading a number of that publication, when he was seized with a tit of laughter, followed by a splitting of the sides, which soon terminated fatally. Medical aid was ire- m: diately called in, and the sufferer was wrapped in sheets 4:1 the 111ornihg Herald, which are generally recom mei,ded in stich cases as equal to wet blankets ; but the unhappy subscriber gave his I,,St laugh, and expi-ea with a Con7uisive grin upon every feature. A long investigation took lace as to the treatment the patient hid been submitted to, mid the Coroner thought that if the application of the Herald hail been earlier, it might have saved the man's life. Th e l ure , after an hour's deliberation, - returned a verdict of Justifiable Split-the-side, with a deodand of threenene3 on the number o l'apc/i that occasioned thelecident.,-Pan.: f se following deplocal) l .e .z: - :ciclent occurred a feu days ago at the Lying in. Hospital in the rue de la Bourbe A young woman u .ted with the care of the new-barn infant: until they Were sent away t.t the wet-nurses, being obliged to supply them night and day . with milk from biberons (bottles mule on purpose) became so worn out by Ler constant watch , that, in order to gain a few hou-s' sleep, she boiled a puppy-head in the rni:k she was to give the babies in the early part el the night. The seporitic.took effect, and, having no dread of the consequences, the y oung nurse l ay down in her clothes, ready to get up again at the first err. She, however, did not awake till the 'sue was up ; snrp . ised that she . ha i been kft quiet so long, she went to look at her numerous charges, and found them still sound asleep. This long dart tion. of repose, knoivieg what she had administered, alarm„. :1 her, and she took eve means site eettlif to rouse them. All these being in vain, she felt a conviction that she had killed them. With a courage and self-d evot i on w hi c h was. saareely to he ex - peeted from one in the position in which she hat t,laced -herself, she hastened to the medical Offiecr3 in the, establt3hment,• and candidly to'd them what she had d0n".. , .,. Every remedy was immediately resorted to, and happily eight: out of the nine infants vies were under the influeuce of the nareu.ic %atm revived, but the hat, which was only . hours al, was irrecoverable. An investigation took place, but the poor girl seas so distressed at what had happened, and at the tame time bore such an excellent character for the persever... hag humanito with - which she had long exercised her delicate and arduous duties, so that she wys held up as an example-to others in Whom simiiaC trust was placed, that the magistrates ecnaiiitcred it to be a simple act Of imprudence, and would not rthtnit her to prosecution. DARING ROBBERY . AT SHOOTER'S Htt,L.--On Tuesday night, aboqt half-past eight o'clock, two swell cracks men drove up to the Bull Inn, and a!tghted fro m a one- l iente Chaise', and it is supposed's. third was with them, as three Vitt° mtbsenuentl) seen together. The two first we n t 63 bar pa r l our and got ' into aon . versation with same respect able gentlemen from Elthant and ordered some brandy and had water. Th e y no.- left tl'e 1/ many minutes when Mrs. Welborn° sent the ser,v:thltic.t4iirshluup-stirs for the key of and bar-dwr (a half one which hall, no doubt, been foreeluttsobAth h a e spr l i lins en their departure), When she immediately re'ne y d rie t d state of great tn alarm, as she discovered thait,larittel ant money mranwers and a writ ing desk had been plundered of t of WV., and alto a number of articles ofVw Y el t le o r y t ' l e jeje ni g N in n ee to the landladies, Mrs. Francis atid Ales. Welbor - nC No tune was to be lost, and upon an applic being made t o th e post master at the Red . Lon, who 11.-,s expreFs horses i n cont i nual readiness fur the Morning journa!s, William Love, his lineman, was in a few seconds in ti.e saddle aunt after the seoundria!s towards London, whilst another mountel horseman with th em direction. Love came up was sent in the opposite near the Green Man turnpike-gate in the Kent -road, where a sharp encounter took place, but heiteg overpnwered, the thi eves effected their escape. However he succeeded i n securing the horse and chaise, which he brought bock to the Greenwich police-station. These landladies are weep respected in the neighbourhood, and have had a hard winter to struggle through, at a high rent, which makes their lees of the more serious con sequence to them. An hcchest farmer, who was at an agricultural show _dinner, where the late Duke of Buccleuch was in .tl„e the chair, and a round of fi g hti ng men b e i ng toaste d , one giv4 - tg :v iii7g .ton, another Graham, a third Lord Hill, and CO on, said, w-,en it came to hi s t urn ---'4 gie ve Saunders Pirgive n' Chrichton dean, fur he's haft a sair fecht wi' the world a' his lik—an honest min wi' a big family , " — Scotch Paper. TRIAL IN CORSICA. The Court of Assizes for Corsica was engaged, during the 25th and 26th February, in the trial of a Man named Moisetti, for an attempt to commit mur der; the circumstances of which are interesting, as they show the rude manners, customs, an. character of the wilder parts of the island. In the -commune of Levie, arrondissement of Sartene, is an extensive sweep of country almost entirely covered with primitive forest and brushwood, no part of which has been cul tivated by the hand of man, and where - there are - no roads or even paths, except the tracks .made by the sheep and other cattle, and the herds and shepherds who attend them. It is inhabited by a single family, or tribe, called the Cucchi, who live in rude huts and cabins, and whose existence would have been unknown but for. their acts of rapine and violence in the country around them. In the same district cvas another family or tribe, the Susini, and which had some, alliances with the Cuechi, but were of- a character more mild and pacific, carrying on a traffic with their .catt:e iu the neighbouring communes. This, by -increasing their means, excited the cupidity of the c yechi, and made them liable to repeated invasions from them, not unfrequently - .attended_ by murders. This in time called down upon the family of the•Cucchi the ven geance of justice, and, in the course of a few years, 24 of the principal mealbers of the family were ar i . ested, tried, and condemned to the- severest penalties of the law. Sonic years ago, however, . _Mathieu Moisetti formed a close intimacy With Sorba Cucchi, and they lived together as man and wife ; but at last he left her, and joined the Susini. Moisetti was-with out family or fortune; but from his ability, courage, insinuating manners, and humanity, was - superior to those among whom ie lived. A new-born child being found deserted at the door of a church, and no one else being willing to take charge of it, Moisetti adopted it, and-•brought it up as his own. • By this benevo lence he gained the- general good-will of the Susini ;, but- he soon abused their confidence, by seducing • a young girl of the family named Eugenie, who became with child by him. _ This - violation excited the ani mosity of the Susini, which, after a time, was appeased, by Moisctirs promising to marry Eugenie. Still, it appears, 11.Ioisetti kept up his intercourse. with Sorba Cucchi. Francois Susini, an uncle of Eugenie, was one of the greatest advocates for the marriage of his niece, and in October last was accompanying setti to visit her at Ogliastrello, where she lived,. It was in the dark of the evening, aimed when they arrived at a place called ROgROSO, three shots were fired at them, . but ,without - effect. - They both fled and • - escaped; Various • • conjec tures- were formed as to the 'actors in this at tempt, the Cucchi endeavouring to persuade Moisetti that he had been.led into the snare by Francois Susini, in order to gratify the vengeance of his brother Qui licus, the father of Eugenie. Under this impression, Moisetti - raised an accusation against the Susini, and a feud between the two families was likely to ensue. M. Peretti, a rich and influential landowner, of the corn mune of Levie, interfered, and, to prevent the san guinary consequenceS, succeeded in prevailing upon the contending tribes to observe a very ancient custom which had existed in Corsica from the middle ages, and _enter into a truce, which both parties solemnly swore to observe until the end of March, when they were to meet. again - before their mediator that he might, if possible, effect a,permanent reconciliatio n . In the interval the Susi n i endeavoured to exculpate themselves in the mind of Moisetti, who was induced to renew his promise of marriage to Eugenie, on condi tion that the Sugini would protect him against the re lations of Sorba Cucchi, who had delared their resolu tion to prevent or avenge the marriage. Affairs were in this state, when about the middle, of November, as Moisetti was returning home from the moun tains, accompanied by a person named Caroletti, and, his son, a - boy 10 years old, and carrying in his own arms ,the child he had adopted, they had arrived at a spot called the Carracuto, when a gun was fired, and a ball broke the right wrist of the child, and wounded Moisetti in the side. Every en deavour to discover the assassin was in vain. Aloisetti, calling to mind the threats of Sorba Cucchi and ' her friends, suspected that the attack came from them. They hastened to attend him in his wounded state, which soon cured, and, at the .same time, turned his mistrust of them against the Susini, who grounded their defence on the plea that they could have no motive for seeking his life, as - they wished him to repair- by marriage the injury done to their honour through Eugenie. Through their representations Moisetti laid an information against three of the Cucchi as guilty of the attack. Warrants were issued against them, and they fled, and concealed themselves in the mountains. From this time' Moisetti returned into friendly intercourse with the Susini, except Quilicus, the uncle of Eugenie, whom Moisetti still appeared to be inclined to make his wife, but the necessary pre- Vious formalities were drawn out by delays which the Susini attributed to Moisetti, until Jan. 6, when they were complete, and nothing remained but to fix the day of celebration. In the evening of that day Francois Susini, a cousin of Eugenie's, to whom Moisetti im puted frequently the attempt made upon his life at the Rognoso, was fired upon as he was returning home to his own house at Monticello, and wounded in the left thigh. Although an investigation was im mediately made by the Magistrate of the district, no one was pointed out as the suspected person, until after three days, when Francois Susini accused Moisetti, who, on hearing of the charge, denied its truth, and maintained that it was impossible as, at the time of the attempt, h e was a th re e h ours ' walk distant from the spot where Francois Susini was struck, _ The wounded man refused to give credit to this alibi, and persisted in his charge. A month a ft er , an d n ot t i ll then, a warrant f or te arrest of Moisetti was issued, and he fled. Through friends, a communication was kept up between him and the Susini, till the one party engaged to fulfil his contract of marriage with Eugenie, and her family promising to - do all in their power to obtain his acquittal on his trial, for the attempt to murder their relative Francois. This mutual agree ment being settled the banns were published, and the bandit Moisetti, though liable to the arrest, was mar ried to Eugenie, in the pre sence o f near l y a ll her fathily, and the bride and bridegrooth escorted by them to the abode taken for them. After passing a few days with his wife, the Assizes came on, and Moisetti sur rendered himself to take his trial. His appearance in Court excited general interest. He is between 25 and 30 years of age, of middle size, with a light beard scarcely visible on his chin, contrasting strangely with very black and long hair falling over his face from under -his high-pointed cap, giving a power ful expression to his countenance, which at the same time was agreeable. His attitude was firm and digni fied, meeting his Judges with respect but confidence, and not' noticing his enemies. . The first witness (the prosecutor) deposed that on account of dark ness and the concealment of the brushwood, - from behind which he was fired at, he could not see the assassin.. He, under the circumstances of the exist ence of the truce, and the contract between'Moisetti and the family for his marriage with Eugenie, had no suspicion of the prisoner until evil advisers insinuated that the attempt mast - have been made by him, in order to avoid the proposed marriage. The celebration of the marriage had convinced him that these suspicions were false, for _he never would have forgiven a man who he believed had attempted his life. The rest of the evidence was upon the facts we have stated, and upon the alibi, which was not distinctly made out. One circumstance also weighed strongly against Moisetti. It was proved that his own- gun, which he usually carried with him, was of small calibre, but on the day of the at tempt he was observed with one of a larger size, as mast from the dimension of the ball have been that with which the prosecutor was fired at. Monet al though assisted by counsel, frequently examined the witnesses; and addressed the Court with a propriety, eloquence, and correctness of memory, which stir-. - prised all present, and drew even from the President an expression of admiration. The Jury, however, after a very short deliberation, delivered a verdict of guilty of an attempt to murder, but found that there were extenuating circumstances. The Court sen, :euced him to hard lab Our at the hulks for eight years. Moisetti has appealed to the Court of Cassation. HORRIBLE DEPRAVITY. Wednesday an investigation, which lasted many hours,- was gone into before Mr. W. Carter, the coroner for Surrey, at the King's Arms, near the new church at Camberwell, respecting the death of azabeth Madden, aged 6.9, whose suicide, it will be seen, was the result of the unparalleled infamy of her sun and daughter. Inspector Pike stated, that on Sunday morning, :bout eight o'clock, he was walking on the banks of the Surrey Canal, whoa his attention was directed to something I.oating on the water, which he at one time supposed to be a dog, but on closer examination ho discovered 'to be the body of a woman. He procured assistance, and the tie. ceased was got out of the water, but life was quite extinct, and he directed it to be conveyed to the above house. The identification of the body having been established, James Madden was next ca!lei in. said he was a printer, to,iding at No. 12, New-street, Last-lame, Walworth. The deceaset was his mother, and on Sunday he heard her body had been found in the Surrey Cana'. lie saw her alive at half.past one o'clock on Sunday; she was then in Burdett-street, II alworth common, and he did not leave her until half-past ten o'clock at night; she was then in apparently good health. To the Coroner.--Before he went away she asked him if he would stop to sleep. He would not go home, as his sister was very drunk. The Coroner.—Had the deceased been in want of food ? Witness—Yes. A Juror—Now, you are upon your oath, and many of the Jury know more than yon imagine ; state what camel the destitution, and appa rently the suicide, of your own mother? Witness—My dater p'.e:lged all for liquor. The Juror—Was it your mother's property ? Witness—No; she was a laundress, and the linen belonged to families at the west end of the town, for whom she worked. The Juror— How long is it do you sup pose she has wanted proper nourishment, or even ordinary food? Witness —Six weeks ! The Coroner—On this night of which you have been speaking what occurred between you and your mother? Witness—She said she should be driven away by some person. She was lightheaded, and all was pawned, and thatn such u c c a h u e a d hera beastly state Elizabeth Wigg, the . daughter, was sent for, and when s he came to be sworn was 'evidently i state of intoxication that the Coroner refused to take her evidence, and ordered her out of the room. The brother-in-law of tit,' daughter was brought forward by Mr. Clifford, the relieving-officer. lie stated that he saw h i s sister-ha-law on Saturday, and alto was' THE SUN, LONDON, FRIDAY EVENING, APRIL B, 1842. then very drunk. The Coroner—Can you tell the Jury how it was the deceased was driven to the deplorable state in which she appears to have been? Witness—She only gave way by threats ',The - Coroner—From whom ? Witness—From my sister-irr-law ; she would take the poker and threaten. to dash her mother's brains out if she did not go and pledge things to get drunk. A Juror—What do you think canned the act she has committed? Witness—The ill usage of her daughter. The Coroner referred to the facts, and observed, it was one of the most painful and disgusting disclosures he had ever heard. The Foreman said he was of opinion the daughter ought to be taken into custody. The Inspector of Police— We shall readily do that, if any one will give her in charge, but at present we arc not justified in doing so, and I may add, this case will not Le lost sight of. The Jury consulted for a long while before they could agree to a verdict, and then handed the following special return to the Coroner :—" We find that the deceased destroyed herself, being at the time in a s'ate of temporary insanity arising from the ill-treatment on the pat of her daughter, and the depravity of her son James." The police have found an immense number of du plintes of property belonging to persons in high rank at the w st end of the town ; but at present it is not advisable to state their names. IMPERIAL PARLIAMENT. HOUSE. OF. LORDS, Aran. 7. Their Lordships re-assembled for the first time aft er the Easter recess to-day, at Five o'Clock. The Earl of BANDON presented a number of peti tions from Youghal,. Cork, and other places in Ireland, against the national system of education in that country, and in favour of the Biblical School Society of Ireland. The NOBLE LORD ' also presented, on behalf of the Earl of Bolen, several petitions—from London derry, against Church patronage in Scotland ; and from Dublin and other places, praying for the ratification of Presbyterian marriages contracted in Ireland previous to the late decisions of the Judges in that country. • 'MESSAGE FROM THE HOUSE OF COMMONS. Mr. BAILEY and others brought up from the House of Commons a Bill for the improvement of the navigation of the Severn, and several other' private Bills, which were read a first time. The Earl of. RIPON brought in a Bill to amend the laws relating to principals and factors, which was read a first time. The Earl of WICKLOW presented a petition from a congregation of Presbyterians in Dublin, praying for an alteration of the law. relating to their marriages. He thought that when the law came to be understood,"it would be found that there was no occasion whatever to alter it. MESSAGE FROM THE COMMONS. _Mr. GREENE, and other Members from the Commons, brought up the Sale of Parochial Property Bill, the Ex chequer Bills Commission Bill, the Spirit Duties (Ire land) Bill, and several other Bills, which were read a first time. ECCLESIASTICAL RESIDENCES BILL. This Bill went through Committee, and the Report was ordered to be brought up to-morrow. IMPRISONMENT FOR DEBT. Lord CAMPBELL presented a petition from 265 pri soners in Whitecross-street, praying for the abolition of imprisonment for debt, except in cases of fraud. From his own experience, and the investigations which had taken place, he was convinced of the truth of the state ments contained in this petition, and he concurred in its prayer. The Marquis of NORMANBY moved that the return of the appointments of Magistrates Ity the present Go vernment should be printed.—Ordered. SLAVERY. Lord BROUGHAM presented a petition from the Anti-Slavery Society of Belfast; praying that slavery might be abolished in th<East Indie s ; a l so a petition from another Anti - Slavery . Society, prayin g that the importation of Hill Coolieg into the Mauritius should not be allowed. Also, 'a ',petition from certain Literary Institutions 4 ln the!: Metropolis, praying that such institutions should ; bq exempt from the income tax. CHURCH PATRONAGE IN SCOTLAND. The Duke of ARGYLD taid that he should not bring orward his motion respecting Church patronage in Scot land this Session. Lord CAMPBELL rejoiced very much that the Noble Duke had deferred his motion, and he hoped the Noble Duke would consider the propriety of abandoning any attempt at legislation on the subject. A NOIAJLE ,LORD presented a petition from a place in Norfolk;„praying that no alteration might be made in the present Corn-law s . LAW OF EVIDENCE. The Earl of SHAFTESBURY postponed the second reading of the Bill relating to the law of evidence to this day week, in consequence of the absence of Lord Denman. EXCHEQUER BILLS. The Duke of WELLINGTON moved the first read ing of the Exchequer Bills Bill, and gave notice that he should move the second reading of the Bill on Tuesday next. The House then Adjourned. HOUSE OF COMMONS, APRIL 7. The SPEAKER took the Chair a few minutes before Four o'Clock. Mr. AINSWORTH obtained leave to bring in a Bill to extend the polders of the Bolton and Preston Railway. Mr. PACKS presented a petition from a place in Lei cestershire, against the grant to the College of May nooth. Lord JOCELYN presented a petition from the tim ber merchants of King's Lynn, praying that 12 months might elapse, before the present duties on timber were interfered with. Sir J. TROLLOPE presented a petition from Lincoln, against the proposed tariff. Mr. BAILEY presented a petition from Worcester to the same effect. The Marquis of DOURO presented a petition from Norwich, praying for commercial reform. Mr. lIODGSON presented a petition from Neocastle upon-Tyne, against the proposed duty of 4s. per ton upon coal. _ _ _ Mr. BROTHERTON presented four petitions from Cheshire, Oldham, and Yorkshire, praying that females might, not be employed in coal mines. Mr. AINSWOR r TII presented a petition from Maryle bone, praying that Vauxhall, Waterloo, and Southwark bridges might be thrown open. PRESBYTERIAN MIXED MARRIAGES. Mr. SHARMAN CRAWFORD presented a petition from the Minister and Congregation of the Presbyterian Church of Magherally, in the County of Down, referring to the decision of the Irish Judges on the subject of Presbyterian Marriages, and praying for a law to make valid all the future, as well as the past; marriages solem nized by Presbyterian ministers in such cases. Also, a petition from the Minister and Members of the Indepen dent Chapel in Donegal-street, Belfast, with a like prayer. _ DUTY ON LEATHER. An Holy. MIPIRER on the Ministe-ial benches pre sented a petition from the tanners, dithers, and leather trade of some place in Chester, against any alteration in the duty on leather. _ to the resignation of the late Lord Corehouse, he was aware that it might be alleged th a t th ese papers were o f a private nature, • and could nc4 be given. But . in answer to that objection, he might be allowed to say that he held a copy of the correspondence in his hand; and if there was any difficulty about the matter, there they weie.--(Cheers.) There could, therefore, be no reluctance to accede to the motion upon that head. lie had copies of the letters with the names of the writers attached to them. He found that no less than six Scotch Judges were either the authors, or alluded to in them ; among shorn were. the late Lord President and the newly elected Lord Justice Clerk. There were a l so six Peers of Par liament, and several Members of that House •, and among the names, he found those of Sir R. Peel, Sir G. Clerk, Sir William Rae, the late Lord Advocate, and others. The papers were first distributed by the individuals who commenced the correspondence ; those were the late Lord Corehouse, and the late Lord -Advocate Rutherford. Under these circumstances he (Mr. Wallace) hoped that it would not be alleged against him that he had endeavoured to bring out papers which ought to be con sidered as private correspondence. But, if such an allegation should be made, he, standing there, unaccused of having • over done anything un gentlemanly, or unworthy of a Member of that House, would pledge himself to , exclude anything from these documents which should be considered, upon a scrutiny, to relrlte to private characters or private affairs. Having premised this statement, he would flow assure the House that the motion he was about to make was of a most important character, deeply involving the interests of his own country, and of the Members of the legal profession, for every lion. Member Must know that no more solemn question could be brought before the House than one for the reform of the 1 Courts of Law. That was his object, and he would en j deavour to fulfil it, and as much in those documents would sustain his opinions, he was anxious that they should be laid before the House. He main tained that the Judges of Scotland had very little to do, and that they did not do that little perfectly; in truth, as these papers would show, they might rather bo called gentlemen at large. They interfered in questions that should not concern them, and were much concerned in pointing out how patronage should be distributed, and in other matters which prevented them from doing pro perly the little public business they were charged with by the country. If the motion were resisted, he should read in reply—his sole object being to establish the truth of his allegations,, of there being toe man y J u d ges i n Scotland, by whom the people were very badly served— a few sentences from the pamphlet ; but he conceived that as a matter of right, what he required would be agreed to. Under these circumstances he would move, " That the correspondence respecting the resignation of the late Lord Corehouse, formerly a Judge in the Supreme Court of Scotland, and now retired on a pension for life—as the same was circulated by the said Lord Corehouse and the' late Lord Advocate for Scotland, and was by them 'sent to many Members of both Houses of Parliament— be laid on the table of this House." Dr. BOWRING seconded the motion. The motion having been put, Sir J. GRAHAM said that the lion. Member had stated that if the motion he ' made were opposed, he would not occupy the time of the House. and he had proved his intentions by the brevity of the observations with which he had prefaced his motion. The lion. Gentleman had admitted that the correspondence was of the nature of a private correspondence, and he was right in so describing it. He recollected that on a late occasion when a motion was made respecting the allowance for the late Lord President of Scotland, the very cor respondence in question was wanted, and it could not be found, though he had himself made diligent search for it. He was anxious to get a copy of it, but he could not find a single paper in London on the sub ject. He should, therefore, oppose the motion of the Hon. Member. Mr. WALLACE was not inclined to forget what he had before said as to his anxiety to save the time of the House. Although the Right Hon. Gentleman hat said that he (Mr. Wallace) might use the papers in his pos session at a fitting opportunity, he gave the Right Hon. Gentleman no thanks for ' his permission, for he should have done. that of his own accord. He would select such parts of the correspondence as he thought fit, and put them in the hands of those who ought to possess them. He dittnot wonder at the Right Hon. Gentleman objecting to his motion. nor should he wonder at certain Right Honourable Gentlemen on his (Mr. Wallace's) side of the House doing the same; for these papers showed that there had been a great deal of jobbing on both sides ; and he knew as an indepen dent Member that when such motions were brought fc,r ward they were generally obnoxious to both sides of the House. He should therefore, on the 19th of April, make any use he pleased of this paper, and of all others of a like dessription. At present he should withdraw his motion. jection could not apply at present; in those days petitions on aßill could be discussed, and sometimes one pe tition would occupy a whole evening, consequently nothing could be easier than to defeat a tax by petitions of that description. NO decision of this period could apply against him (Mr. buncombe), since the role of the House now was, that a petition must be presented by merely stating its object, without any debate arising on it In the year 1733, a petition from the City of London was submitted to that House against the then pending Excise Bill. It was moved not only that the petition should be laid upon the table, but that Counsel should be heard at the Bar against the Bill. A long debate then arose. Mr. Pulteney;"Sir \ Villiam Wyndham, and others, spoke in favour of the petition being received ; while the then Chancellor of the Eichequer, Sir Robert Walpole, the Attorney-General, and the Solicitor-General spoke open the other side. The arguments used upon that occasion, were the same as those used in the pre ceding Session—namely, that the time of the House would be too much occupied with a multitude of peti tions, and that public business would thus be incon veniently impeded. The matter ended, however, by the petition being allowed to be left on the table, while COunsel was refused to be heard at the' bar, but only upon a narrow . division, the numbers voting with the Government being 214, and the, numbers voting on the popular side being 197 ; so that there had been a majority of only 17. In April 1733, more petitions came in from Nottingham, which litre ordered to be laid upon the table ; and the Excise Bill was ultimately dropped. Now this (*tom of not receiving petitions • has certainly ob tained ever since that period, with a few isolated ee ceptions in cases when the petitions had slipped in with out the observation of the House. But the question had never afterwards been discussed until the month of May, 1815. On the Ist of May in that year a petition was presented against the then pending Pro pert, -tax Bill. That petition was certainly rejected ; but it was rejected not only on the ground of its relating to a tax then pending, but also because it was supposed to be disrespectful and libellous in some of its allegations. Sir W. Curtis presented that petition ; it was rejected by 107 votes to 29. But there had been no rule laid down upon the subject. and it had always been left to the discretion of the House to receive or to reject such petitions. From the year 1815 he would pass to what had occurred the other day. On the 22d of last month he found that there had been offered to the House a petition from the parish of St. Clement's, Eastcheap; and also a petition from Royston against the proposed duty upon income. The Speaker, upon that occasion, said that it appeared to him, from the proceedings of the Committee :of Ways and Means, which were published in the Votes and Proceedings of the House, that a tax upon income had been proposed as part of the Ways and Means for meeting the ex penditure of the year, and that according to the established rule of the House no petition against a tax for the service of the year, under consideration, could be received by the House. That was the rule laid down by the Speaker, and he did not complain of the de cision, for he believed the practice alluded to had, with slight interruption, prevailed for a considerable time. He might raise a special plea in the present case, if he did not think it would be unworthy the importance and justice of the case. The Speaker had laid it down, that against taxes for the service of the year petitions were inadmissible ; but the Right Hon. Baronet had told them that this was not a tax for the service of the year, but a tax for three years.—(Hear, hear.) He might use that as a plea, but he thought it would be a mere quibble, when he rested on the broad constitu tional principle that the people had a right to be heard by petition In all cases. Let the House look to the manner in which this tax had been introduced. The measure by which the people were to be taxed, to the amount of four millions, was first mentioned to the House on the 11th of March, and the Friday following the House went into Committee of Ways and Means ; and from that hour the doors of that House were closed against the petitions of the people.—(Hear, hear.) No doubt it was convenient to a Minister, who was - unpopular with th e coun• try, that such a rule as the one in question should be enforced ; but it was not the less a gross in fringement of the rights of the people. He concluded by moving, rrhat*the practice of this House, which precludes the presentation of petitions on the subject of any tax or duty under its consideration, be dis continued." Mr. 'WALLACE seconded the motion without any observation. Sir GEORGE CLERK was not prepared to contest the argument of the Hon. Gentleman, that the doors of the House ought to be open to the petitions of the people. But the Hon. Gentleman himself had shown that from the earliest period, since the Revolution, the rule to which he (Mr. D.) objected had been maintained. Very soon after the Revolution, a greater number of petitions were preSented than had ever before been known. It was found inconvenient to have so many petitions against the Money Bills of the year, and after a few years the evil was found to be so growing, that the House in 1693 came to the resolution that no petition should be received against a Money Bill under the consideration of the House. After a great number of decisions by the House, it seemed to have been admitted by all parties in the House to have been a wise and salutary rule respecting the restrictions of the presentation of petitions. He thought the House also had been ex tremely jealous in preventing such restrictions on the presentation of petitions going beyond that line which was originally drawn in 1693. There had been apparent deviations from that rule. Those deviations arose from doubts entertained by the House as to whether the Bills under discussion, and which had been petitioned against were, properly, Money Bills, or rather only Bills for the regulation of trade, by the provisions of which additional burdens might be thrown upon the people, either by increasing the actual amount of duty to he levied on certain arti cles, or by imposing regulations according to the ma chinery of the Act of an inquisitorial nature. He thought that if the Honourable Member would look to the discussion in 1733 he would see that upon that oc casion, when a Bill was introduced by. Sir R. Walpole for regulating the duties on tobacco, the point considered was, whether it was a Money Bill, or one merely for the regulation of trade. The precedents previous to that time were ordered to be read during the discussion upon the Bill; thus it would be seen that, from the year 1693 downwards, that rule obtained. Now, upon what principle had the House adopted that rule. It was upon this. If the House of Commons found it necessary, in order to raise a supply in Com mittee of Ways and Means, to have recourse to the . disagreeable alternative of imposing fresh taxes, there could be no doubt that the im position of fresh taxes would be felt as a burden and a grievance by every class of the com munity. Now, the House would not require to be informed, by petitions, that the people felt the impositions of those taxes to be a grievance. It was for the House to judge, whether, after having voted large suppli es t o th e Crown, and seeing no other mode of raising those supplies but by the imposition of fresh taxes, they were to desist from the course of proceeding which they had adopted, merely because it was felt by some individuals to be a grievance? After the year 1733, the rule having been com pletely established, an attempt was made at devi ation from it ; for, he believed, that in 1733, when an additional duty was sought to be laid on receipt stamps, the City of Lo n d on p resente d a petition against the Bill introduced for that purpose, and the petition was received under those circumstances. It was the privilege of the City of London to present potions to . that House by their Sheriffs who, for that purpose, came to the bar of 'the House. No Member stated the substance of those petitions, and the petition to which he now alluded, was merely laid upon the table, and read by the clerk, and consequently no question could arise from the precedent of a petition so presented. Mr. Fox had been present in the House on that oc casion, and no man in the then, or in the pre sent Mouse. of Commons, could be more jealous of the rights of the people than Mr. Fox--had said, that although he had considered the sub ject of petitioning the House of ' Comm Ons to he an invaluable right of Englishmen, yet if they 'permitted every man to petition nil :lime every new tax, it would be- impossible for the House to go on with the business. Mr. Fox -even went still further, and said that the more universally a tax should be petitioned against, the greater argiiment, in his mind, did that constitute in its favour, because it proved that the tax acted impartially —that it was an equal tax, pressing equally upon all classes. This practicecould not be attended by any inconvenience, because if a tax were proposed, those whii were affected by it had an ample opportunity of making their representa tives aware of their feclin;s on the subject. No evil could possibly arise from refusing to receive petitions upon this subject, as all constituencies had an opportunity of instructing their representatives. Was there anything he would ask in the tax, which his Right Honourable Friend hail proposed, to call upon that House to depart from what had been their practice for the last 150 years. He did not com plain of the course which Honourable Members opposite hail adopted before the recess for the purpose of delay ing the progress of the Resolutions. They had taken the opportunity of the recess to ascertain the sentiments of their constituents, and therefore whenever they should come to a division on the subject, every Member would be as well prepared to state the sentiments of his con stituents, as if they had had an opportunity of presenting petitions on the subject. He was not aware of any new arguments against this tax. He . conceived that if they refused the right in that instance, where the interests of a particular class of trades were concerned, the greater reason they had to refuse it when the tax was universal in its application to all classes, and included all persons. It was for these reasons—bec ause he heard no argument from the Honourable Member for - Finsbury, showing that inconvenience had re sulted from the rule—because it had been adopted by the House of Commons for 150 years, and had been found by all parties a very expedient rule—be cause it had not been rashly adopted by them—because it was likely to secure the rights and privileges of the subject and of the country ; it was for all those reasons that he opposed the motion :of the Honourable Member. However easy it might be to introduce topics of popular declamation with regard to the rights of petition, it would in his (Sir G. Clerk's) opinion be very inconvenient to receive petitions on those occasions alluded to by the Hon. Meinber, and would be very detrimental to the public service. M. MACAULAY said, that however anxious the Right Hon. Baronet appeared to be with regard to the right'of individuals - to petition, his speech seemed to be directed against the right to petition in general. The Right lion. Baronet would give the right to petition whenludividuals were taxed ; but when . the • Weil press most grievously and most heavily, and when it would be most grievous upon every one, lw would take it away altogether.—(Hear, hear.) The Right Hon. Baronet cautioned th e m against the practice of declamation on the right of petition. Now he (Mr. - M.) would ask any. Hon. Member whether he had ever heard the right of petition spoken of in more 'declamatory language —(Cheers)—whether he had ever heard the peculiar sacred, inalienable, he reditary privilege of the p eo pl e more lightly spoken of than it hail just now been by the Right 11011. Baronet?— (Hear, hear, and cheers.) The only difl'erence between the declamation of the Right Hon. Baronet and that wilch he censured on the other side being that the declamation of the Right Hon. Baronet was a prelude to an attack upon it, instead of an introduction to its sup port. He (Mr. M.) would take the right of petition at the value the Right Hon. Baronet put upon it. He (Mr. M.) wanted no other motion than that brought forward by the Hon. Member for Finsbury, to show the importance of the high inalienable right of petition, which the declarative of the Right Hon. Ba ronet gave the House reason to fear- he would withhold —the right he would take at the valuation of the Right Hon. Baronet, leaving his arguments to the attention of the House.—(Cheers and laughter.) He (Mr. Macaulay) • conceived there were only two cases in which the House ought to refuse to receive a petition. The first was, when a petition was brought before them, expressed in indecent and improper language ; the second, when a petition prayed them to do something which it was nut within the province of the House to do ; as, for example, supposing it to be po;sible an Hon. Member were in duced to present a petition praying the House to stay an action of 'ejectment. The proper answer to give in this case would be, that this was a judicial matter, and, that, therefore, the house could not interfere.—(Hear.) Was the present a matter ofjurisdiction ?—(Oh.) Was it not, in fact, a matter in which the House of Com mons only could decide, and one of those privileges which the other branches of the Legislature had not? — (Hear, hear, and cheers.) When her Majesty commenced the Session, she addressed her statements and advice re specting our f ore i gn an d domestic policy to both Houses, "My Lords and Gentlemen ;" but when she came to .matters connected with the right of taxation, she reeognised one of the most sacred and important principles of the Constitution, and the Queen addressed them as " Gentlemen of the House of Commons."— (Laughter, and mutual cheers.) To them only did her Majesty recommend these great questions for con sideration.—(Cheers from both sides.) Look at these facts, and then see the operation of the principle the Right Hon. Baronet contended for. The people were everywhere sending in petitions against the income tax to the House of Lords—to those whom the Queen never addressed on such questions—to those - who, under one of the most sacred principles of the Constitution could not originate any mcasure of finance—all that the House of Lords could do in such case being to throw out a Bill sent them by the Commons, while they could not correct the smallest of its details, their utmost power in modifying being to recommend tin alteration.—(Cheers.) But was the House of Commons to be the only branch of the Legislature which must be precluded from receiv ing petitions praying them to execute their own proper functions ?—(Cheers.) For what earthly reason could they refuse to admit a petition which was likely to give rise to a discussion on a Measure of taxation ? This course might be proper under the old system, but now, when its practice, when very great, and he would ac ktipwledge, very beneficial innovations had been made in the old practice ofParliament, and for which he had felt it his duty to vote, the reception of such a petition as that now in question would not be productive of the slightest inconvenience. Let the Right lion. Bart. recollect what he said a few nights since about the old forms of the House, his respect for ancient usages, and 'his veneration for precedents 150 years old, and then proposed the discon tinuance of a debate brought on by the presentation of a petition, on which he (Mr. Macaulay) voted with him, and now appealing to those principles, he (Mr. Macaulay) would assure the Right Hon. Baronet that if the practice now introduced were persevered in, the people would soon cease to petition the House.—(oh.) 'That was well argued. Having removed that, the only inconvenience which could arise from petitions of that sort being presented to the House, he should think himself inexcusable if he were to give a vote for the Ricrht Honourable Baronet. And let not the Rights Honourable Baronet think that the coerce proposed would prevent inconvenience. He would find the contrary. There was nothing more easy than to have presented 100 or 200 petitions to night on the income tax when nothing else was doing. He had petitions from Edinburgh, praying that petitions against the income .tax might be presented. Their constituents met and passed resolutions, which they prayed might be presented ; and Gentlemen who represented, large constituencies must and would stand up and receive these petitions even in their speeches, night after night ; they could not be prevented from doing that; he (Mr. Macaulay) should do it on the first night of the income tax debate, and others would do it too.—(Hear.) If the petitions of thepeople were not to be received in a Parliamentary and constitutional way, they would be heard in another way. He never made a vote with a clearer conscience in his life than the vote he should give On this subject. He thought the country was much indebted to the Hon. Member who had broug; , t forward this motion.—(Hear, hear.) He thought the case so clear that he did not believe that any Ministry could have a majority in opposition to it ; at any rate the people were much obliged to the Hon. Member, because if they carried the motion they would gain a great privilege, and if they lost it, they would have gained a useful warning. Captain HAMILTON said he would vote with the Hon. Member for Finsbury if be thought that the people were likely to suffer by the loss or rejection of his motion; but he did not think that likely to be the case ; he did dot think that the question affected the people directly or indirectly. There was an Hon. Member opposite who he believed intended to -intro duce a new Reform Bill. He would like to know how many of the new constituents would be affected by a tax on incomes of 1501. per annum.--( Hear, hear.) The working classes of this country felt no interest whatever in this question. On the whole, he did not think that any satiffactory ground had been stated for departing from the Standing Orders, and he must therefore vote against the motion. Sir R. PEEL said he should consider he was guilty of a gross derilection of duty if he took any other course than that of meeting the Hon. Gentleman's proposal by a direct and decided negative.—( Hear, hear.) He should strongly oppose a depar ture from the constant usage of the House of Commons era• hilt:bed at the period of the Revolution, and uniformly adhered to by that House.—( Hear.) The House of Commons did, at a period very shortly subsequently to the Revolution, determine that they would not receive petitions against taxes for the cur rent year during the progress of the proceedings with refer ence to those taxes. The subject had been discussed again and again, at different periods, and at periods when there were par ties in that House as keenly alive to the necessity of maintaining popular rights and privileg_es as any party could be at this day; the resolutions of the House of Com mons had been to adhere to the practice which they found es tablished.—( Hear, hear.) And he ( Sir R. Peel) was surprised at the new zeal of the Right Hon. Gentleman opposite—it had never been awakened till lie was out of office.—(Louil cheers from the Ministerial benches.) The Right Hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer, felt it to be his duty, in the year 1840, to propose an addition of 10 percent. to the assessed Mr. MACAULAY said he had never heard of the existence of the rule until the present period. Sir ROBERT PEEL—The Right Honourable Gentleman never heard of the existence of the rule until the present period; that wes what he said; it was unfortunate for the public that' the Right Honourable Gentleman's informa tion was not procured until he was out of office —( Loud cries of " Oh, oh,"' frOm the Opposition) —so that he had not the means which he might have had of exercising the influence of office to relieve them from that great grievance.—(Cheers from the Ministerial benches.) When the Right Hon. Gentleman was a member of the Cabinet, the Right Hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer felt himself called upon, by con siderations of public duty,-to propose an addition of 5 per cent. to the Customs' duties, and IU per cent. to the assessed taxes. supposing that every party who was affected by the Customs' duties, or the assessed taxes, had attempted to obstruct that measure by pouring in petitions, he asked the House whether the Right Honourable Gentlen.an, the Chancellor of the Exchequer, would not have availed himself of the resolution of that House which had been enforced 150 years previously, to prevent such obstruction ? ( Hear, hear)—and he could not help thinking that the Right Hon. Gentleman, who was Secretary cf Wax and a member of the Cabinet at that time, would not have abandoned hii colleagues by insisting upon a departure from the 46tiviiiilhed practice. —( Cheers from the Ministerial benches.) At va rious periods, as would be seen by a refs: ence to •' Hatsell's Precedents," attempts have been made to break through the rule. On the 29,h if January, 1760, a petition was presented by a number of maltsters asaiest a proposed addition to the duty on malt. On the question that it should be brought up being put from the Chair, it was decided in the negative nentine contra dice n t e . th e un i versa l op i n i on o f t h e Hou.cbeing that it was for the public interest to adhere to the established practice. In the year 178'3, when party feeling ran very high, a petition was presented from the merchants and traders of Exeter against a proposed alteration in the stamp duties. The Horse refused to receive the petition. In 1795, a period when Sir. Fox and Lord Grey were contending against. Mr. Pitt—a period when the public mind was greatly excited by the enactment of Bills which were supposed to im pose restraints upon the liberty of the people—a period when, if any question of constitutional privilege had arisen, a severe contest would have ensued—when .Mr. Pitt was charged with designs injur:ous to the liberty of the subject, and Mr. Fo'x and Lord Grey were contending for the maintenance of that liberty—on the 4th of March, 1795, when the argumsnt wa s that taxes were imposed to carry on a-. unjust war, and every im pediment was offered to those taxes, the question arose as to the right now under consideration. On the 4th of March Certain capitalists, importers, and dealers in foreign wine, lire. pared a petition, praying that some proposed duties should not be imposed on wines in stock. On the question being put that the petition be brought up, it was decided in the nega tive, nentine contradicente. Even at that period, when the popular party was led by such eminent men, the House decided by general consent that the established usage should be ad hered to. Neither the leaders of that party, nor any of those who fought tinder their banners, opposed any obstacle either by vote or speech ; by the simple enunciatio n o f the word "N o " the Home' decided that they would not depart from the establish.d rule against receiving such petitions. He hoped the House of Commons would adhere to this prac tice, which in all conflicts of party had been hitherto adhered to. If he had been perfectly certain that a great number of petitions would have been presented in favour of the income tax, that would not in the slightest degree have influenced his discussion on this point. He conceived that he was doing h's duty to the House of Commons in asking the House to adhere to the constitutional privileges of the House. He hoped that those who had formed a portion of the late Government, and he could net help thinking they would adhere to this privilege that they would feel he was justified in asking the House of Commons to adhere to a usage of this description. Our r:ghts depended on constitutional usage—on the privileges of Parliament the rights of the subject depended, not on Acts of Parliament merely, but by constitutional usages. The Right Hon. Gentleman said he was a party to imposing the rule of Prev en ti ng debating pentioes at the time of presentation. In consequence of the inconvenience attending it, the Right Honourable (gentleman reconciled himself manfully to support a restriction upon a right almost as sacred and inalienable as the right of petitioning, viz., the right of free expression of opinion in presenting petitions. It was a sense of absolute public inconvenience that induced the Right Hon. G ent l eman to take that course, sad impose the restriction. It was precisely the same motive and conviction which led the House of OCIMMOUN at the time of the Revolu- tion, to impose that restraint, and which had led the 1 - 1 01 ,r ef p Commons subsequently to adhere to it. He (Sir It• e r,4 felt very confident that the House of Commons, recoliiett te fre , the period at w hi c h t h e l aw was ma d e — reco ll ec ti n g tl quent instances in which such an adherence had becn iou e ported—he felt confident th a t a l arge ma j or i ty o f that I : aa would determine net to break through a usage of this dr-reiria tion. But even if his conviction was not well founded, MI there should be a different result—if he stood alone, he'"" 7 e . feel that he was acting in fulfilment of his public duty t 6 hti fending their rights and privileges, by assisting, as far P humble voice could do, in the adherence t o thi s us age. g e e Sir G. GREY said he quite agreed w ith th e Right ~ ,1 Baronet when he said that that was a ques ti on irresieet';a party consideration, and while he entert a i ne d thi s opinions„, feeling ileeply convinced of its truth, he could not sul re r - e the great warmth with which the Right H on . Baronet 11 0 , ceived that motion.—( Loud cheers.) The R Baronet asked with extreme warmth, why . his -(Sir G. r ' e¢ Right Hon- Friend did not advance his opinion on tbssamito when he was a member of the late Atlministration, whee d late Chancellor of the Exchequer was call e d u p on to profi t ' se del addition el Customs' duty, and why he did n o t move the/L.4 the rule be rescinded? Let him (Sir G. Grey) ask the 1 7 a . , Hon. Baronet whether, on turning to the votes of that Hoe: je whether, recalling the' proceedings of that Haul t or could show him (Sir G. Grey) that any Member of House had tendered such petitions?—( Loud checl l ae d If petitions had bet n tendered to the House front c onstifuelo against taxes, and the House had reject e d th ose petitionst.' lo l there would have bee n some groun d f or t h e tau nt th a t ee l been thrown out against his lion. Friend, lie rernela i ot no such case at previous period s , tho ug h h e h a d eitee many instances of it during the present Seesiein. -It spa' to be found on the records of the House, that on re t ar d against the plan of the Right Hon. Baronet being teoutto by Hon. Members on behalf of th e i r cons tituencies , to speaker had informed those lion. Members that a ccord'''r be the ru?es of the House those petitions could to t t 0 ri eeived, and consequently th e y were e ntered. rejected. If precedents w ere a ll t h at we re tuT a a sary, lac Hon. Friend had made ou t a ta W a rjot case in favour of the principle for which he contended. or e he would ask were precedents to he a ll i n a ll on s uch a di e d tion? In a case where the i n t eres t s o f t h e n ation t o vitally affected, were they to be bound entirely by the Pr' s : 0 of their ancestors ?—( Loud cheers)—especially in a l o ra which his Right lion. Friend who sat near him had„ e „ael to demonstration—had shown by arguments against which P o - t eer heard not the slightest arguments produced from the tw it side of the House—that the reasons which influenced ala ancestors had utterly ceased to exist. When petitions T ot be debated day by day—and as it might be found by re b / to the Journels of that time, petitioners prayed to be heard courts 1 against a tax—when those petitions might he folleec t esl by a motion that counsel be called in and heard at the bar o. lt v House against the tax,that might be such an instrument ` t ot and procrastination against a Bill imposing a tax w hich . o t * be required for the exigencies of the current sear, that ;tu t e l ment might become so powerful in the hand; of a mice rit ,i o ,o that House, that there might be, and he was willing 01 1 01, that there were sufficient grounds for restricting the the people, that inalienable right of petitioning . which h e t es gretted to have heard praised by the Right lion. -Barer Pt terms, while it was attacked an spirit.—( Loud chelse*lagbr *would repeat that there might be reasons for curtailing che f rla on the ground of public inconvenience and urgent necetor but he would say that his Right Hon. F r i en d h a d s h ow n to d e ( t ee/ stration that they ought not blindly t o f o ll ow t h e t r ack a e pi ancestors, when the reasons for follo w i ng th e t ra ck ht a, ii tirely ceased, and when, if they adh ere d to t h a t pritc: dal would produce greater inconvenience than any Bde-80 (8 e- c or k , could be derived from restricting the r i g ht o f the r e ta id Great complaints were made of the del a y s th a t t a ke a er coming to decisions in that House, and the repeated ae ae gli ments that take place, and he felt ound to speak more si r on that subject, as in the late divi s i on th a t too k p l a ce e l ' t nr gard to postponing the debate o n th e i ncome taxe he vete ait oh the only occasion on which he did vote, in the rnajoritY of ! the Right Hon. Baronet. But if cons tit uenc i es could uebtelcl4 their sentiments made known i n th a t H ouse b y petition t"eaese on the table, abstracts of which p e titi on were pr i n t e d sou' h et* in extenso, it would necessarily become incumbent on iMe re , ,oti' knowing the strong feeling th a t ex i s t e d among t heir Cr tuen ts when any subject of importa nce arose , to addreo ta vete House and protract the debate ind e fi n it e l y .—(Loud the from the Ministerial benches.) Let Hon. Gentlemen , ° e ; ti r ed' opposite side hear the eild of the sent ence b e f ore th e y ell s eed He would say procastinate not with the view of procrasu e ,,a or delay, which he utterly disclaimed, and had disclaiU ) ,; a rte. voting against it, but simply because th a t o th e r leg ',', 1 0 1 course of expressing the sentim e nts of th e i r coristiltleu s e ve by adhering to a practice, which, however w i se then, w e t ee aite most unwise, because unnecessary, and fu r th er un wise ' u`,'" it must be bad to grant delay and i ncon veniru te r ok questions in which the interests of the country were condi, by repeated protractions of debates on que s ti ons o f intif t, of this kind, and by adjournments, w hi c h, b e thoug h e e pee / A the interest of the representatives not to carry b eyo nd t" . " 10; absolutely necessary for the assertion of their princifilee' a " e t d often were petitions referred to in debates in th a t 1101P`53:ar index of the wishes of the people ? But that courser ea , " be adopted in the present instance. No man cou ld spee'lots tali the the subject of the proposed income tax, of th e s entirecol the constituency of another man ; and, therefore, they to the all be compelled to rise in their places, if instrueLd- bat' by their constituents, in order to make known their ' 4° o ol the House. He, for one, notwithsta n di ng t h e iner 6 ty tie cheers of the Right Hon. Baron e t, s i ncere l y an d tione'. l ;ib o precated such a course. He was for con fi n i ng debates / yr House within reasonable and moderate limits. He saW',ll° ever, in the determination of the Right lien. Baronet 1 4 4 the out the people from presenting petitions in the cafe o ne income tax—(Hear, hear, hear)—the necessary con , e'l !e br which be deprecated; and not having heard the st aetig . est reason for adhering to the former practice, that the defence of the present practice rested simply ur t precedents which might be quoted in its f av our, B , l _ l 0 08 essential difference had taken ielace in ,the practice of u! e tt aief e ; regarding the reception of petitions, obviating.the ' 4, nience which was the foundation of the rule. be dh?'l dof cordially and cheerfully give his support to the met° o Hon. Member for Finsbury.--( Cheers.) h e DO Mr. C. BULLER raid, that he hoped the .cour se (f taken on a former occasion, might be a sufficient eaeo,:, {be n addressing a few words to the House upon the a tb a , under their consideration. The House would reitnetu t l ig 'irew e the Right Hon. Buronet had refused to allow of thell delay in bringing his resolution before the House. l ' e t 1 11 ': Buller) confessed, that until he had aceidentally disco ae ne rse; rule of 1816, he had, in common with the public g e l: e tt' been- utterly unaware of its existence. He thought for Speaker of that time might have been .mistaken urger, subject ; and he had, therefore, asked the Bight 1 1 °, 0 I r e tleman, who now filled the Chair, for his opinialel .a. matter. When he had been told that, .the rule ‘ i e .. 7, e iel F , when the resolution was once proposed, they should be I r` e ker o‘ l from presenting any petitions upon the subject, he had f u el I t , fully put it to the Right Hon. Baronet whether lie oc t :i ta , t o postpone the Committee of Ways and Means, a ° n re4 - country should have at least more , than one week to e b i ; 1 0 ‘ ; opinion upon the proposed tax. The answer of t eit , lien. Baronet was—he (Mr. Buller) should give . e. ," credit—remarkable for its explicitness and for its In (Hear, hear, and laughter on the Opposition benches' ) s fir Right ' Hon. Baronet would hear of no delay in bring a ' a i i ' ward his resolution. Now, in the year 1816, when tt ',e proposed by the Opposition of .that day that the it'fijetec e should be discontinued, that gre a t cons tit u ti ona l • . lil beo (Laughter)—whose respect for p o p u l ar rights otsgh' jles model to Ministers of the present day—he and Lortf e ads it yielded so far at least to the wishes of the party °Pre? them as to allow the question to 'be deferred until Ill s% Ile opinion was so strongly expressed that the obnoxin e u e _ e ee t te repealed. Was there ever an attempt made to 57 00 1 , 1 0 rule under such circumstances as the present ? It ;b remembered that the people had had no warning tn a e gi t e a tax would be proposed, and that no opportunity had be e e i t eo . 4 them of expressing their sentiments upon the subject.n-ef the tax was one on which in former times the opini7iaer? country had been more strongly expressed thadupon an Y t e /ce see casion. Now the Government came down and took the f ir erie surprise, giving the people only one week to exprefs.`" e trie ,) ntons, the Right Hon. Baronet availing himself of this b e prevent them from being heard at all.—(Hear. I e l ,t io ei I ",je At the same time, he quite agreed with the Right ' t i o pe t 3r , ronet as to the rule laid down, that Hon. Gentle on one side of the House what they did on the ° there . , eel to hear, and a laugh.) They seemed to h o ld t h a t it wortwaiest proper to do so.—(Laughter.) It was a ru l e that ape.i more things then the question now under consider' a lig . (Hear, hear.) He thought, howev er , th a t there N a g th e re 4 thing in connexion with this, not s o very discreditable e ie ," the Opposition side of the H ouse ; for during t h& y years that they sat on the othe r (the Ministerial) h e° ice e fe occasion arose for the rule to be applied.—(Chee:s.) noxious tax was proposed aga i nst w i nc h tile peePlehe% tee petition. Loud cheers, a f ter w hi c h Sir 14° " -r o ,#) made some observati ons across t h e ta bl e .) be es' r (continued Mr. B u ll er ) t h ere was one evtare tax introduced—the t en p er cen t. tax, an d pe titions settled against it ; but no occasion arose no twithsta" fo rcri ta which this rule for excluding petitions was put bi e s (Cheers from the Opposition.) One argument Of ° the Right lion. Benoist the Member for Stamford se to r e e t o ba t ed pedieney of the rule, seemed to him (Mr. B.) be e lle° asei force—that was. that the people ought not to uv tha t '1 petition on those subjects which they felt so acutely last t i s t would petition too much.—( Cheers and laughtere/ the y °o f e lt to say, that if they had the, right of petition at at, they to he allowed to exercise it only on subjects in er, e lu t , e r, rolc _ I , to no interest.—( Renewed cheers and laughter.) '' . ..,49°Pl e st unworthy of a Reformed Parliament, for it was Pa7the prevent the people from expressing their opinion' at eaceable and constitutional manner. m ilt Mr. WALLACE, w h o s p o k e f or some time a ea ito l ea interruption f r o m cr i es o f " Di v id e ," sa id he sca t d ea ce fel ar nished, both on this oc c asi on arid before, at the esfe, many Gentlemen opposit e , o n the important ntea et r evasi, elt "the House, and that th e y an d th e Ri g ht Honoursb a do alt o , did not com e to f ace th is question as h e ought to. o ld te a great a ma j ority . B ut h e (Mr. Wallace ) was ! D ance 0 3 hunter, and knew from experience that when bettn eirte m tioe . mute, it was not l ong b e f ore t h ey b eca me se: tie nt ' A nt 1 so would b e some o f t h ose sitting beh i n d t he ed e etle; e r Baronet.—( Great laughter.) An Honourable it ta . opposite (th e M em b er for Aylesbury) ha d s aid ta a a ea not the peopl e , b u t t h e m i ddle classes, w ho 01 , P ° 0 , 4 ? come tax. But did t h e H onoura bl e Genticui, cla?ete that the people consist e d on ly of the worki" ;7tf i e er tit s l —( Hear, hear.) That reminded him of th e ns:: e a ir. would not allow that he awes a soldier, thinking, ,1, t he applied only t o the privates, and he was therefore.a wen ' Office:, and no soldier." —( Laughter.) But u,'"what e k e ' ' Commoners of that Howe, if not time peo ple en n eoP, h e were they but the people ? Where were they but a t u to i e en House, and sent by the people there? He should /1 1, e such a 'I" 0° c h Hon. Gentleman go to the hustings and make y , the , _ o t (Loud cheers.) He should like to be present N e tr ehae ge r iLa Gentleman, at Alesbu, or elsewhere,and take the „ a e, him.—(Cheersof and laughter.) He (Mr. W ll„..cro)net cord he had giviu. way to the Right Honourable: a ava nel .e , Robert Peel That Right Hon. Gentleman h Dareu .f. made such a> iserable appearance. The Bight rt ll % e seg.', throughout his speech had done nothing but advert t. toe old If that was all that could be said in defence of to b c old usegei'oell were adopting—if they did nothing but revert Huse wae 2a defence of an unconstitutional course—then the ..a tee t 7 o , into even greater di grace with the people than rt a : ter by seeing the observations of the on t t aee ty for Liskeard. lie (Mr. Wallace) sees a . t s t : o ' oo a s 1 t. .. 1 —( Cheers. ) His attention had been first li dr o a n w r n ab T e tt iv il e ei l b! - the country, suffering from ill-health. . s fi e.tnter fe pi' • saw those observations he felt that if no one et raj would be his that (11 House,lr t under di,. he i i i r a o d w it un in de h r is d p is o c e u k ss e i t on w . he i n ie hi l s ia l d io p o r . ep y a r lie e e i l ,d Finsbury showed him the resolution at present ' sion, and ticked him (Mr. Wallace) to face! , it ser t 7 0 / as nt lis t.h r e e' l‘ d i n e truiQbre' . r eel to NV a p l i r a o c p ' o '' ss duty, resolution an I ; . i d m e ideanra't t h d sine. he should have felt ashamed to meet rte h t of fi e s shrunk from the performance of his duty honest Scotehmen which lie reeresentee% _ l f . h a d ta tionine ought to be perfectly free. Recently- resenting ae ittue et away the right of Members to speak on prese t a t h r thus verifying the adage of Givo them a° a now .0 11 _2„.. way of injustice, and they would take an ' totea. tiaj sought to do away with the rig'tt of petitioning against brief eel monstrous. Ihe Right lion. Baronet was right ' ()n the time t fi to manner the in na ti s o v n h i el t i o he ex pr r e e s f s us refused their i s 0 p a i s a L e i obl to g aur i r d y had assented to it lie would never have both ta b lc le e"'" his income tax. If he were to assent to it now t he _ cecinrsli tuerfat INCOME TAX. Mr. H. JOHNSTONE - presented 'a petition from the occupiers of land in the county of Dumfries, which con tained a protest against the income tax, in so far as it as,-urned that the Scotch farmer's income amounted to halt' his rental, against the standing orders of the House, which provide that no petition against a tax under the con sideration of that House could be received by the House. The SPEAKER intimated.to the Hon. Member that his petition could not be received. CORN-LAWS. Mr. O'CONNELL. presented two petitions from places in Ireland, comp!aining of the . palpable injustice of the Corn-laws, and praying f r their repeal. REPEAL OF THE UNION. The Motu' HON. GENTLEMAN then presented several petitions, numerously signed, from Kilkenny, Castleford, &c., praying for the repeal of the legislative union. Sir H. HERON presented petitions from Hyde,' in Cheshire, against the proposed alteration of the Corn laws, and said that he had also several petitions against the income tax, which he found • the forms of the House would not allow him to present. ELECTION PETITIONS—SHREWSBURY AND GLOUCESTER. The SPEAKER inforined the House that he had re ceived a conununication from the agent to the petition against the return from the borough of Shrewsbury, stating that it was not his intention to proceed with the petition. The Speaker also informed the Hotise that he It id received a communication from the agent to the peti:ion against the return fin. the borough of Gloucester, &dining .to prosecute the petition in that case. GREAT MARLOW . ELECTION COMMITTEE. COMMITTAL OF A WITNESS. Sir J. Y. BULLER appeared at the bar, cue informed the House that he had been instructed - by the' Committee appointed to try the merit; of the petition against the return for the . borouzh of Great Marlow (of whi c h h e i s Ch a i rman), to report to the House the following resolutions to which the Committee had .come. The. resolutions were That in the opinion of this Committee Richard - Gibbons has been guilty of wilfully giving false evidence in his examination before them : that the minutes of the said Richard Gibbons be reported to the House without delay: and that thoiChairman do, by warrant under his hand, commit the said Richard Gibbons to the custody of the Sergeant-at-Arms, to await the pleasure of the House." The Report having been ordered to be brought up and laid on the table, Sir J. Y. .BULLER moved that Mr. Speaker do forthwith issue his warrant for the committal of Richard Gibbons to her Majesty's gaol of Newgate, which was agreed. to, and the .Speaker's writ was ordered to be issued forthwith. DUTY ON FOREIGN SHOES. Mr. BLEWITT presented a petition from shoe nakcrs at Northampton, against the proposed reduc tion of the duties upon foreign manufactured shoes. Mr. E.-.BULLER presented a similar petition, but whence could not be heard in the gallery. - The L fo ( 1 ) 1o N I% G i 1 1 ) l e ) m b E e r r a s E % C r e T r e i swornN:. il 3E as i T a i °. Committee to try the merits of a petition, complaining of an undue return for the county - of Longford G. W. Wood, Mr. J. W. Henley, Mr. R. Ferguson, Mr. H. llalford, Mr. W. Forbes, and Lord Ashley, , who was appointed Chairman. SUDI3URY ELECTION PETITION. The following Members were sworn as a Committee to try the merits of a petition, complaining of an undue return for the borough of Sudbury:—Mr. G. 11. Vernon, the Right Hon. R. L. Shiel, Mr. T. D. Ackland, Mr. A. Bannerman, Mr. J. P. Plumptre, Mr. T. Gill, and Mr. T. N. Redington. An HoN. MEMBER presented a petition from the tan ners and shoemakers of Congleton, against the proposed Aeration in the duty on foreign boots and shoes. Mr. GIBSON CRAIG presented a petition from Mel rose against the Corn Bill ; and a resolution signed by m , , re than 3,000 of the inhabitants of Edinburgh against the income tax. RESIGNATION OF .LORD COREROUSE. Mr. 'WALLACE rose and said, that in moving, pur suant to notice, fur a copy of the correspondence relative THE TARIFF. Mr. WARD wished to know if the report which had been circulated with regard to one of the changes in the tariff were true. It had been reported that it was in tended to increase the duty on foreign salmon 100 percent. Sir R. PEEL had not heard of any such report, and assured the Hon. Gentleman that the report was without foundation. TIII3 CANTON RANSOM. Mr. BLEWITT wished to ask the Right Honourable Baronet if he had any objection to state to the House what had been the amount received on account of the Canton ransom, in sterling money. The present state ment in dollars was very confused. Sir R. PEEL said that as soon as the Sycee silver should be coined, he would let the Hon. Gentleman know its value in British - currency. In answer ,to a question which was put by the Noble Lord last night, he (Sir R. Peel) had replied from recollection ; he would now give the Noble Lord more particular information on-the sub ject. There was a sum of 3 23,1931. from miscellaneous revenue. He had told the Noble Lord that he was under an opinion that a great part of that had arisen from the ransom money. He would now, however, more particu larly account for that sum. There was for surplus fees, 20,7701. •, incidental, 501. ; hereditary revenue, .373/ ; Sycee silver, 302,0001. There was an additional sum, for which credit was riot given. Mr. BLEWITT wished to ask th e Ri g ht . H on. B aronet another .question, as to .what was to be done with the • junks, &c., which had been taken as prizes in the Chinese Seas. He hoped. no application of the money would take place, till he had an opportunity of speaking on the subject. Lord JOHN RUSSELL slid, perhaps the Hon. Gentleman was not aware that an Order in Council had been passed for the disposal of those prizes. Mr. BLEWITT then wished to know whether, in pur suance of that order, proper instructions had been given relative to the adjudication of the prizes. Sir R. PEEL said that no doubt proper instructions were sent. when the Order in Council was made. INCOME TAX—PRESENTATION OF PETITIONS. Mr. T. DUNCOMBE then rose to move—" That the practice of this House, which precludes the presentation of petitions upon the subject of any tax or duty under its consideration, be discontinued." 'The Hon. Member said that up to the time when the Right Hon. Baronet (Sir Robert Peel) made his financial state . - ment, few individuals in that House, but much fewer out of it, were aware that it had ever been the prac tice of the House to refuse to hear petitions upon the subject of a tax. It was surprising that the Members of the Reformed Parliament should at tempt to shelter themselves under an inconsistent and almost obsolete practice by refusing to hear petitions hick were presented to it by those very individuals who had placed them in the position which they occupied. He was prepared to maintain and to insist upon the right of the people to address that House upon any subject which they might think proper. He contended that the people had as indubitable a right to address the House by petition upon the subject of taxation, as upon any. measure of general legislation relating to the right, the liberty, or the property of the subject.:-- (I fear.) He took his stand upon those broad grounds, and he was not prepared to compromise the principle in the slightest degree. Now it would be necessary to trace the origin of the practice in question, the source from which it sprung, bow it had been enforced, and w h en and where it had been departed from. The Honse would. observe that there was no standing order or rule whatever for the course. which they were then pursuing in re jecting the petitions- of the people ; and, he thought, When it was shoirn how tame practice originated, neither the ,House nor the public could be o'herwisc than surprised 'at the slender grounds on which they presumed to reject the petitions of those who had placed them there to protect their property and their interests. It appeared from Hatseli's precedents, which he trusted the House wo u ld cons id er n o mean authority, tliat .this practice originated very shortly aft er t h e revo l ut i on Hof 1638.. The first time the right appeared to have, been luestioned was in 1689. On the 15th of April a petition was presented from the French Protestant tomisters pray ing for relief. It was finally resolved that this petition - should be withd rawn. I n . 1796 a resolution Wll3 passed in a Committ ee o f W ays an d Me ans f or i mposing a tax of ten per cent- ad valorem on articles of woollen. manufacture. A cloud of petitions was pre sented agai ns t i t, an d a l t h oug h the r eso l ut i on was car ried in th e Committee of W a y s a n d Means, the- Bill was dropped ; in fact, the Bill spas never presented at an. It appeared, then, that in 1698, the House having felt the inconvenience of admitting :petitions that had been presented in a preceding session, refused to receive those petitions on a a tax then dependi ng: .In 1708 a tax was proposed upon coals and eulm ; petition was presented against it and was refused, by a ma jo r i tyo f 113 against the presentation. It appears that th e House subsequently departed f rom this rule, for on the 14th of February, a petition was presented from various merchants and traders against a duty on calicoes, and the petitioners asked to be heard against the tax by counsel. That was refused, but the petition itself was ordered to lie on the table till the second . it of the Bill. On the 21st of May, 1711, it was proposed to raise 1,500,0001 by a duty on vellum, parchment, and' cards ; a petition against the duty was presented by merchants trading in Genoa paper, by stationers and haberdashers. That petition was not only received, but was ordered to be referred for consideration to a Committee of the whole House on the Bill. Now that practice of receiving petitions went even farther than he asked to go, for the petition of 1711 wa.s not only received, but was ordered to be referred to a Committee of the whole House. In 1732, th e question was again raised. The inhabitants of Rhode Island, in that year, presented . a petition. against the Sugar Colonies Bill ; the_ same objection was taken to the peti-: tion as in 1698 ; an d a Mr. Winningto n , w h o • ap , peared to be then a great authority on the Ministerial side of the House, said the practice of receiving such a petition - had never been followed except - upon extraordinary occasions, as it had been found in- I convenient from the time bf the House being occupied in discussing frivolous petitions, This ob-