The Sun.
London, England, 1836-05-06 00:00:00

SOUTHAMPTON DOCKS,

On the motion of Mr. BARLOW HOY the Southampton
Docks Company Bill was read a third time and passed.
DUBLIN AND DROGHEDA RAILWAY.

Mr. MONTAGU CHAPMAN presented a petition from
an indivilual, complaining of the promoters of the Dublin
and Drogheda Railway Bill ; and complaining that he had, as
we understood the Hon. Member, been deceived by them, as
be now discovered, if it passed through his property. The
Hon. Member moved that the Bill be referred back to the
Standing Orders Committee.

The .1)E AK ER said it was irregular to present a petition
for the purpose of having a Bill referred back to the Standing
Orders Committee, after it had been read a second time.
Lord STANLEY said it appeared to him that the peti-
tioner was not aware in due time that the line was to pass
through his property.
Sir JAMES GRAHAM suggested, as the petition was in-
formal, that the Hon. Member had better withdraw it.
The petition was then withdrawn.
Dr. 130 WRING presented a petition from the magistrates
of Dunbarton, against certain clauses of the Clyde Navigation
Bill. And one to the same effect from the Glasgow Water
Works Company.
Colonel SEALE brought up the report from the Com-
mittee on the Modbury Road Bill.
Mr. ANGERSTEIN presented a petition from the free-.
bolders of Greenwich, praying that no railway might be
allowed to pass through that town ; and one to the
same effect from 300 inhabitant householders of Greenwich.
Captain ALSAGER presented a petition from Thomas
Miller, of Croydon, against certain clauses of the South
Eastern Railway.
Sir J. GRAHAM brought up the report of the Committee
on the Carlisle Dock Bill.

Mr. O'CONNELL presented a petition from the Dublin
Steam Company, praying for leave to bring in a Bill for their
regulation.

Sir M. S. STEWART would oppose the motion, for it
was for leave to bring in a Bill in place of one which 'sad been
thrown out on the third reading. He must throw himself upon
the House and the Speaker, for he was bound to give every
opposition to the motion in hispower.
The SPEAKER said that the petition was in order.
Leave had been given for its presentation.
Sir M. S. STEWART wished to know whether he ought
to oppose the reception of the petition.
Mr. O'CONNEL said the motion was not to the effect
stated. There had been a petition presented before, and leave
given to present one.
Mr. ROBINSON had voted for the third reading of the
Bill, but still he thought the rule was against the bringing in
of a Bill after one similar had been thrown out.
Mr. O'CONNELL—If gentlemen would only take the
trouble of inquiring into the present proceedings they would
find that what bad been done was regular. The merits of
the Bill would be discussed hereafter. A petition had been
presented by the Company for leave to petition, and that
had been referred to a Committee, which had reported that
leave should be given, and the present petition had been
presented in consequence of such leave. The petition would
be referred to another Committee, which would report
whether the Bill ought to be introduced or not.
Colonel SEALE presented a petition from Stockton pray-
ing for the alteration of the law with respect to Marine In-
surances.

Mr. KEMP presented a petition from Rye, praying for the
total repeal of the Stamp Duties on Newspapers.
VOTE BY BALLOT.
Lord C. LENNOX presented a petition from Lewes in
favour of the Vote by Ballot.
Mr. KEMP supported the prayer of the petition, which was
then laid on the table.

STAMP DUTIES.
The LORD ADVOCATE presented a petition from the
legal practitioners of Inverness, praying for the repeal of the
duties upon the annual certificates of attornies; also a petition
from the Chamber of Commerce of Edinburgh, praying for
the -repeal of the duties upon goods sold by auction, and the
du'cies upon fire insurance'.

M. ROBBINSON had four petitions praying for the repeal
or reduction of the duties upon marine insurances—one from
Beaumaris, two from Carnarvon, and the fourth from 900 of
the merchants, underwriters, and insurance brokers of London.
He would say a few words on these petitions, particularly on the
last, which was one of great importance. He would only state a
few facts to show that in the proposed alteration of the Stamp
Duties, it was impossible that the Chancellor of the Exchequer
could with justice decline to admit some reduction of the Stamp
Duties upon marine insurances. The whole tax did not produce
more than 200,0001.,'which was a very small proportion, consi-
dering the magnitude of the transactions over which the
stamps were spread, and the very injurious consequences
of them to the trade and commerce of the country.
In the year 1822, when the exports and imports did not ex-
ceed 88,000,000/., sterling, the stamp duties on insurances
yielded to the revenue only 300,0001. ; and in the.
year 1833, when the exports and imports of the rr-
venue had advanced from 88,000,000/. sterling to
120,000,000 L, and when, in the same ratio, the revenue for
stamps should have increased from 300,0001. to 400,000/., it had
absolutely diminished to 200,0001. That fact alunc. proved
the impolicy of the tax ; and he had always under",tood on the
true principles of finance, that a better test of the impolicy
of a tax could not be at r..-.-.sent produced, than
that which he had now vent'...red to allude to. —( Hear.)
The SPEAKER here inter. rutted the Hon. Member, and
stated that, for the sake of *jtie 'eule which had been laid down,
the Ho.i. Memb:_v had bettor abstain from making any obser-
vations upon the petiticra,

Mr. ROBINSON `•could not trespass much longer on the
time of the House. But he wished to state a reason why the
revenue had fal,ier. off, and that was that foreigners who other-
wise would ;.nsr.re their property in this country, were deterred
from doin4 1,0, because they did not like to contribute to
the rcv•,nue by paying the tax. It would be his duty to pro,
pose r., reduction of the tax if the Chancellor of the Exchequer
shc•ald not do so, and then he should venture to make those
c'oservations which he knew he could not make then without
infringiu" on the rules of the House.
DIOCESE OF DURHAM.

Alderman THOMPSON presented a petition from a place
in the diocese of Durham, praying that in any Bill passed
for the reguir.cion of the affairs of the diocese of Durham, due
regard sho-Ad be had to the education of the people ; also a
Petition ;or the better observance of the Sabbath.
PeGtions in favour of the better observance of the Lord's
day; Were presented by Sir NV. RAE and Major HANDLEY.
THE BALLOT.

General PALME R presented a petition from Bath in
favour, of vote by ballot, and one for the repeal of the duties on
Newspapers ; also a petition from the attornies practising in
that city, praying for a remission of the duties on taking out
their certificates:
On the motion of an HoN. MEMBER, the House was counted,
and only twenty-20VCR Members being present, the House ad-
journed till to-morrow.

DUBLIN ELECTION COMMITTEE.

At the sitting of the Committee yesterday, Mr. WRANG-
HAM proceeded at considerable length to argue in support of
thellioaali
" ~ he vote of Patrick Bilton, on account of ar-
AL,r. ~. f.•t tax.
al.sw . tCiiiififit-e •ecided, that as it appeared a presentment
:-..1,,,A1thg CirdaJuries of the county, and county of the
• ,i public( for taster and Michaelmas Terms of 1834, at
, "—roe of 15. in the-pound of Ministers money, and in pur-
g9t 41, .
?1 • ,
nc ttliteof, the Treasurer had issued his warrants assessing
' --No 17 Sycamore-alley, for the sum of 2s. 4d.
...-.
Q,.4, ,•,--, ~,- - ~ ..,.0