The Sun.
London, England, 1842-04-12 00:00:00

GREAT MARLOW ELECTION.

Sir .1". Y. BULLET brought up the Report of the
Great Marlow Election Committee, which declared that
Sir William Clayton was not duly elected, and that Mr.
Wynn Hampden was duly elected, and ought to hare
been returned.

BELFAST AND CAVEHILL RAILWAY BILL.
On the motion of Mr. O'CONNELL, this Bill was read
a. second time.

NATIONAL EDUCATION (IRELAND).
Mr. FITZROY presented a petition from Down
against the system or National Education in Ireland, and
in. fttiour of that of the Church Education Society. •
A petition to the same effect was presented by Mr. E.
TENNENT, from the congregation of Christ Church,
Belfast. • •

Captain HAMILTON prnent-all a petition from
Aylcibury against the llog-eart Nuisance in t:ie country.
, , THE TARIFF. •

Mr. GREENE presented ape- tition from the curriers,
leather cutters, and other persons in .Manchfster, against
the proposed alteration of the duty on leather.
Captain BERKELEY. presented a fetition from Glou-
cester to the same effect.

---ERGUSSONI•
Sir R. F
... presented a pctiticn fro:n the
provision traders of L mdonderry against the proposed
ititarations in the tariff.
Lord F. EOERTON presented a petition from the
merchants and traders of Manchester, signed by 24,000
peisons,in.ftiv.our of the financial measures of the Go-
vernment, and praying the House to adopt them as
speediry as possiole.—(clear.)
Mr. 2. FBENCH presented a petition from Roscom-
mon against the Government measures, and stating that
since they were proposed the value of property in that
country. had fallen 25 per cent.—(Cheers.)
An HON. MEMBER presented a petition from Shields,
against the export duty upon coal,
WAKEYIIILL INCLOSURE.
Mr. WAKLEY presented a petition from various
poor personi residing in the county of Southampton,
against the Walieyhitl Inclosure Bill. They stated teat
a similar Bill had been brought forward in 1834, which was
successfully opposed, but that they had been put to great
expense in so doing. He r! presented that the present
Bill was got up by the rich farmers and landowners in
that neighbourhood, and that it was an encroachment
on the rights of the poor, and they prayed the House
not to consent to the Bill. •

Lord HO WICK presented a petition from a number
of the collieries in the county of Darhatn, against the
proposed impost 0r 45.. per ton on the exportation of
coals.

INCOME TAX—RIGHT OF PETITION.
Mr. WAKLEY presented a petition from an individual
residing in Gloucestershire, who stated that his property
was subject to hoary mortgage debts, and that the pro-
posed tel upon incomes , would be his complete ruin.
The petitioner said that there was no necessity "for
so ravaging a measure—(Hear, hear, and a laugh)—
which wouid abridge the comforts of many, and involve
others, situated like himself, in entire ruin.—(Hear,
hear.) He moved that the petition be laid on the table.
The SPEAKER said if it was a petition against the
tax it could not be received.

Mr. WAKLEY replied that it was not a petition
against the tax, but only informing the House that the
petitioner and others would be ruined by it.—(Laughter.)
The petition was then laid on the table.
Lord NEWRY presented a petition from Northampton
against the reduction of the duty on foreign manufac-
tured boots and shoes.

Sir R. BULKELEY presented a petition from Bath,
against the proposed tariff.
Lord JOCELYN presented a petition from Norfolk,
against the proposed alteration of the timber duties.
Mr. MURPHY presented a petition from Cork, signed
by 13,500 against the parochial t; •L. in Ireland, called
Ministers'
Money.
PETITIONS AGAINST THE INCOME TAX.
The Order of the Day for the adjourned Debate on
receiving g a petition was then read, and on the question
being put that the petition be brought up;
Sir R. PEEL rose and said—Sir, I cannot acqtdesce
n the motion that this petition be brought up, because I
believe that the country generally is adverse to the pro-
posal.—(Hear.) I do not mean to say that a great
number of petitions might not be presented adverse to
the financial measure which I have proposed, but they
might also be presented at any time adverse to the im-
position of any impost. At the .same time my objec-
tion to the motion of the Honourable Gentleman is
not grounded on an apprehension that the country
generally will declare itself unfavourable to the mea-
sures which I have tf•ought it my duty to propose.
My Objection to the motion is founded upon the obliga-
tion which I think public consideration requires —to sup-
port that which has been the usage of the House for the
last 150 years. lam quite aware that the usage is con-
sistent with the ,nding Orders of the House. It is
a usage or rule almost universally adhered to—l believe,
I might say, universally ad:toted to, for the period which I
have mentioned, viz. 150 years. Sir, I am influenced not by
a reference to present convenience, but I am influenced
by consideration that the business of the country would
be injured, were it permitted that obstructions might be
offered to any tax necessary for the public service. And it
was the same apprehension which influenced the House in
maintaining this order. In 1808 this question was discussed,
but in that year, as on the former occasion, the question
was not so much whether or no the practice should be
departed from, but whether or no the petition which was
the subject of consideration was directed against the tax
then under consideration of the House. I think in 1808
the petition was directed against the Order in Council,
and those who contended most strenuously for the presen-
tation of the petition contended that the rule of the House
or the usage of the House did not apply to that case. Mr.
Tierney, who was then in opposition, and a high autho-
rity, expressly said—" If I thought that this was a peti-
tion directed against a tax, I should most decidedly vote
for the mution ; becaus..) I believe that the presentation
of petitions against taxes necessary fur supplying
the year ought to be prevented, as every
person then would try to shift the burthen
from his own shoulders, and the consequence
would be such an obstruction to the public business as
would be most injurious." This was the opinion of Mr.
Tierney. He contended that the petition 'was not