The Sun.
London, England, 1842-04-11 00:00:00

SPIRIT of the PUBLIC JOURNALS.

FROM THE EVENING PAPERS OF FRIDAY.
GLOBE.—It appears, by the proceedings of Parlia-
ment, that on the 11th of March Sir Robert Peel
brought forward his budget, of which the income tax
-was the principal ingredient ; and on the Friday fol-
lowing—just one week after—the House resolved; it-
selfinto a Committee of Ways and Means • when imme-
diately the doors of the House were closed to petitions
ei,gainst that odious impost, which the people are super-
ciliously informed by its author is to be continued atleast
five years; and that they may think themselves more
than fortunate if it be repealed at the expiration of that
period. On the 22d of March, only 11 days after the
announcement of the scheme, two petitions were about
to be presented to the House against the measure ;
when, upon the Speaker being appealed to as to
w:iether their reception were consistent with the i
forms of the House, he stated that " t appeared
by the proceedings of the Committee of Ways and
Aleans, 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 raising
the supply granted to her Majesty for the service of
the year ; and that according to the established rules
of the House, no petition against a tax under con-
sideration for the service of the year, could be received
by the House." The petitions were therefore rejected.
This will explain the meaning of Mr. W. Craig's re-
mark last evening, that the petition from Edinburgh
Against the tax, signed by three thousand persons,
he was preVented from presenting to the House.
If anything were necessary to exhibit the glaring
absurdity, and to illustrate the gross injustice, of the
rule which thus excludes the petitions of the people
from the House of their representatives, it would be
found in the ridicule with which a petition emanating
from any number of persons against a tax which they '
imagined the Minister intended to propose, would be
treated by the House of Commons. Such a petition
Would be sneered at as the embodification of chime-
rical apprehensions, and would be thrown under the
table with contempt. The monstrous proposition is
before the House ; and the people are told that they
are now too late with their petitions—" it is contrary
to the forms of the House to receive petitions against
a tax under consideration !"
• STANDARD. Mr. Thomas 8. Duncombe
last' night distinguished himself by moving to re-
scind a rule of Parliament of nearly a century
and a half standing, and - adopted within about
eight years of the glorious revolution of 1688—
surely not the least healthy period of our parlia-
tnentary constitution. The rule in question is
one which forbids the acceptance of petitions
against taxes proposed for the current year;.
and the reasons for such a rule must occur to
All. Every one hates to pay taxes, and very few
there are who must not (almost unconsciously) find
reasons in the nature of whatever tax the wisdom
of man can devise, why he should not pay a tax is
that shape. Thus petitioning would become com-
rneasurate with the population, and Parliament
would be placed in the painful alternative of neg-
lecting either the public service or the petitions of
the people. It is not a question of mere
convenience--it is a question of principle. On the
question of taxation the citizen is a party directly
interested. Upon the ground, then, " nemo actor
et judex," he is not a competent judge ; not a judge,
at all, without hearing the arguments on all sides,
and his int:usion into the deliberations of those
whom he has appointed his representatives 'and
arbitrators can have no effect but to prevent or
embarrass the formation of a right judgment.
On the low ground of convenience, however,
petitioning against an instant tax must be mis-
chievous. Parliament would have so many peti-
tions against such a tax, that it would be impos-
sible to consider them all, and carry on the public
business at the same time ' • but undoubtedly
it is more respectful, and less likely to cause mis-
understanding between the people and their repre-
sentatives, to decline receiving petitions, than to re-
ceive them and throw them on one side. Whoever is
not satisfied by these considerations, will scarcely fail
to he convinced by the learned and extremely able
'argument of Sir Ge'orge Clerk. Mr. Macaulay de-
fended Mr. Duncombe!s motion. He did not pretend
to answer Sir George Clerk ; but liberally dispensed
liae-oltl common-places upon the right of peti-
t tibnofte., trotting with proportional contempt the old
usages of Parliament. Sir Robert Peel happily
r6MarkM That the. lak speaker had not contended for
the, riglit of petition against ,taxes. wllen the admi-
:_alistration of which he . was a member materially
nugrnenteel the existing taxes in 1840. Sir George
Grey replied for his friend, that no petitions had been
: offered 1840. This is a fact deserving of notice,
as illustrative of the differencd bet Ween a Conserve-
Jive and a Whig-Radical Opposition. The Censer-
kative,Opposition ever supported the public service.
h cannot be charged upon them' that they crippled
the public establishments so as to lead to the late dis-
c.' q.ters ; as little can they be charged with having
prompted the measures that have been the immediate
cause of these calamities. Their policy has always
been that of wise men who love their country—to
keep the nation in a condition " strong to resist, but
slow to give offence," the natural policy of England,
as it is the national charateristic of Englishmen.. Mr.
Wakley and Mr. C. Buller alsO spoke ; and Mr.-Dun-
coinhe's motion was rejected by a majority of 167 to
136; •

COURIER.—At length the Corn-law question
may be said to have received its final solution ; on
the motion that " This Bill do pass," the third read-
ing and enactment of the Corn Importation Bill was
carried by a large majority in the House of Com-
mons. The T." demon of the Thames" was not laid,
however, without sundry parting flourishes and
exorcisms of the conjuror who performed the trick
of raising that magnificent trope from the river mud in
which embedded, and to which again consigned.
The mighty M.P. for all Stockport devotedly ena-
moured of a curious conceit for which he
was credited in his one special Corn-law speech of the
session, reproduced it last evening in the shape of •a
substantive motion for throwing the Corn-law over-
board, "That inasmuch as this House has repeatedly
declared by its votes and the reports of its Commis-
sioners, that it is beyond the powers of Parliament to
legulate the wages of labour in this country, it is in-
expedient and unjust to pass a law to regulate, with a
vew to raise unnaturally, the prices of food." This
motion involved a repetition of several of that enlightened
Meinher's usual absurdities. For example, here is a corn
law which, by the universal admission of its oppo-
rents, may be accepted as a manifest improvement
upon existing legislation, inasmuch as its inevitable
tendency must he to reduce the prices of bread stuffs;
I vet this blundering block printer comes forward
grayly to propose that " it is inexpedient and unjust
to 'ass a law to regulate, with a view to raise unnatu-
nig, the prices of food." It is not necessary to
orf2r any remarks on so stupid a contradiction in
sense and terms.

FROM THE EVENING PAPERS OF SATURDAY.

GLOBE.—The Tories are, on some occasions, very
loud in their praises of the Constitution, and of the
glorious privileges which it confers upon the people
who are living under it ; but there are at the present
moment two of its greatest blessings and most highly
vaunted blessings which the Conservative Premier is
doing all he can to withhold from us. The right
of petition, and the power of self-taxation, are
allowed on all hands to belong " inalienably " to
British subjects, and yet this right and this power it
is now sought by the practice of Parliament to alienate.
The almost general abhorrence in which the pro-
posed income tax is held has naturally led to the
getting up of petitions in all parts of the kipg-
doinagainst the infliction of the expected grievance ;
and if ever there was a question on which the voice of
the people could most properly and most constitu-
tionally be heard, it is this, with regard to which
.Sir R. Peel has contrived to prevent public opinion
from being brought in the usual manner under the at-
tention of Parliament. If the people can only petition
against taxes before they are proposed, the only course
that is open to them—particularly when they
are ruled by a Minister who gives no intimation
of what his plans will be until he brings them forward
—is to form a series of conjectures as to what oh-
noxious imposts may probably be suggested ; and
• even then the ingenuity of the Premier in devising
some oppressive measure may be greater than the
skill of the nation in foreseeing it. Innumerable
speculations might have been formed as to the course
Sir. Robert Peel would have pursued, and peti-
tions
. founded on all of them might have been
sent in ; yet not one would probably have " hit
the
right nail on the head," by remonstrating
against the imposition of an income tax based on
such unjust and unequal principles as that proposed
.by the Premier found- to have been based upon.
In looking for the authority upon which the Speaker
has decided that petitions. against the income tax can-
not be received, the discovery has been made, that it
is not a standing.
..order, but mer.ely a practice of the
House, that guides it in the determination it has hitherto
arrived at to reject the prayers of the people. Now,
even had there been a standing order expressly laying
down the position that petitions under such circum-
_ stances as now exist are not to be received, it would
still be competent to the good sense of the House, if
an order which
not imperative on its justice, to alter
= could only have been useful in cases which ca
nnot now
; for as the presentation of a petition is not
allowed to give rise to a debate, there cannot be that
waste of time which the refusal to receive petitions
• - was solely designed to obviate. The rule, however,
which it is now desired by the Premier and a portion
of his followers to enforce, is founded on a practice of
the House, and the existence of the custom is urged
as the sole reason for its continuance. It 'is perhaps
as well, or better, 'to adhere to the-usual course,- when
is -
thereroom to doubt the propriety of a departure from it ; but when reason and justice are clearly in a
contrary direction to that which usage has pursued,
the latter should be abandoned as speedily as possible.