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

the people of Engleni might be presented against it.
The consequence would be that the decision of the House
on subjects of taxtution would be brought into disrespect—
(Loud cheers from the Opposition)—and a notion would
get abroad that this House did riot fairly represent th,
opinions of the people.—(lmmense cheering from the
Opposition benches.) He (Mr. Milnes) could not help
thinking that the Hon. Member for Finsbury had
some notion of the kind in his head when he brought
forward the present motion, and that his object was not
only to annoy the Government for the time being, but
to render the people discontented with the constitution of
the House. He, therefore, called upon all Menibers who
were satisfied with the constitution of the House, to
consider iF it would be wise to abandon whathad so long
been the constitution of the House.—(Cheering.)
He did not care much for the prescription of 150 years,
if there was a good opportunity for repealing that pre-
scription. But after ten years, if a Government evow-
edly popular, which had never raised the question, nor
remedied this great and glaring abuse—after all these op-
portunities had been missed, now 'when a tax
was imposed that he believed would lead to
fewer petitions from the people of England —that
was confessed to be the most equal that was
ever proposed—(Laughter)—he thought it strange that
they should choose this particular time and moment for
the repeal of a prescription of 150 years. He hoped they
would not look at this as a party question.
Mr. HENRY BERKELEY said he was loathe to
trespass upon the House, but felt it his imperative duty
to do so. He held in his hand a requisition, signed by
nearly a thousand of his constituents—(Hear)—and he
was aware that a similar one had been presented to his
Hon. Colleague—entreating them to do that which the
people were precluded from doing, raising their voices
against the odious income tax.—(Hear.) It was not for
him to say what would be the course of his Hon. Col-
league, but for himself he felt it to be his duty to speak
the voice of his constituents on this occasion. He agreed
with them when they expressed their utter disapproba-
tion of the proposed tax—(Hear, hear)—and their dis-
gust at the chicaner4 which had kept the people in ig
norance of it until it was too late to petition.—(Hear,
hear.) Under these circumstances, he felt it to be his
duty to express the opinions of his constituents, when
they could not, and he should vote with his Hon.
Friend the Member for Finsbury. He looked upon the
right.of petition as one of the most valuable privileges
the people had, and particularly when the purses of the
people were so heavily assailed, by a heavy and unpre-
cedented impost in time of peace, did he think that
right should be maintained.—(Hear.)
Lord F. EGERTON thought it would be impossible
to conduct the proceedings of any Government, if they
were to depart in any sensible degree from the rule,
whether established by resolution or otherwise, against
the discussion of petitions. But he could not do otherwise
than concur in the reasons for throwing open as widely
as poesible the doors of this House to the petitions
of the people, as far as the necessities of the Go-
vernment and the Legislature would permit. He
confessed he should vote on the question with much
greater readiness if he could see any likelihood, under
the sanction of the Speaker, that the practice of this
House, with regard to the presentation of petitions and
the restriction of debate, could be evinced by some
more formal proceeding than had yet been been taken.
The question being simply one whether this petition
should be presented or not, he could not, with whatever
reluctance he might differ with his Right Hon. Friend,
but vote with the Hon. Member opposite.—(Hear.)
Lord JOHN RUSSELL begged to call the attention
of the Noble Lord and the House to what had occurred
in the early part of the session, when, the ques-
tion was brought before the House, when •it was
stated by the Speaker:the more formal way of Proceed-
ing would be to move that the resolution of 1839 be re-
scinded. In laying, down that mode of proceeding, he
believed the Speaker was acting according to the forms of
the House; and he (Lord ,L Russell) lied no doubt that in
conformity with reason such ought to be the form of the mo-
tion; because if any other course was adopted, they would
have a resolution standing on the Journals of that House
to which they would be acting contrary, not, having
rescinded it. On, this motion, the question being put,
there appeared Ayes 50, Noes 237. He would now
allude to the objections stated by the Right Hon. Gen-
tleman, and he begged to say a few words on the ques-
tion himself. Th© Hon. Gentleman had asked why the
late Government had not proposed this reception of
petitions ? But it was because he had agreed with
the conduct of the late Government that he gave
his support to the reception of this petition.
-What had been the practice of their ancestors ? He
did not, like the Hon. Gentleman who spoke last, hold
himself indifferent to the practice of 150 years, nor
was it without great reflection and strong argument
that he should be ready to overturn so long
a practice. The practice used to be to throw the
doors of the House open to petitions, to let them be
receifedc the substance of them stated,, and to let other
Members debate them. When the grounds of the petition
were fairly before the House, if it were necessary that
the time of the House should be .oecupied with the dis-
cussion of those petitions, they were debated. . But it
had been said that on one particular subject, the en-
actment dl' twses, this extreme liberty was incon-
venient. Bet what lied they said ? Had they
concurred with their Masters in this question of
the discussion of petitiona ? By no means. They had
found the practice would Iced to serieus inconvenience,
and therefore put a stop to it, .an,4 made other rale* with
respect to the preBentatush oft .titiom, resolving that Al:us-
hers presenting petitions should coniiii• thcmsQlres to :he
subject of them, and also preved other Members
from speaking. on them. - Should they depart
from the rule in this respect and keep it up only
for the sake or restriction, - and should they insist
on the wisdom of their ancesttstee only when that wisdom
would lead to the restriction of the . presentation of
petitions ? He could not take that one-sided view. of the
question. The Hon. Member said it had been usual to vote
taxes unanimously. He believed very few Chancellors
of the 'Exchequer would be disposed to agree with hint
in that opinion. The House would recollect that there
was nothing in the, forms of the How to prevent petitions
being presented against taxes, which had been already
in existence. If-they voted the income tax this year,
any number of petitions might be presented
next year against it, This was an inconsistency.
He hoped -the House would admit this petition,
as well as every other otte preperly worded..
Mr. S. WORTLEY said that he was sfiegirOne of saying
a few words on the subject under discussion, inasmuch
as he was one of those who had supported the opposition
of his Right Hon. Friend the First Lord of the Treasury,
on a former evening, to the proposal of the
Honourable Member for Finsbury. He wished
to remind the House that the question as ft eeemed
to him before the House was not precisely the Sante
as that on which they had to decide on the former oc-
casion. The Hon. Member for Finsbury had moved
the other evening that the practice of the House should
be discontinued which forbad the reception of the
petition against a tax under the consideration of the
House. Now he (Mr. S. Wortley) so far concurred
with his Right Honourable Friend, that he did not
feel prepared to vote for the discontinuance of
a practice which had been established so many years.
He thought that that was a reasonable objection to the
former motion of the Hon. Member fur Finsbury, because
he could conceive cases of pressing emergency, in which
It would be desirable to enforce the practice which had
been so long in existence of not receiving peti-
tions against a tax under the consideration of the
House. But, at the same time, now that they
were called upon to receive a petition against an income
tax, he owned that he doubted whether they would be
justified in enforeing the rule in that particular instance.
They had been told by his Right Hon. Friend at the
head of the Government that the income tax was to be
made part of a series of measures ; and he (Mr., S.
Wortley) thought it could. scarcely be called a
tax imposed merely for. the service of the pre-
sent year. He did not think that the remarks
of Mr. Hatsell applied to such a case as the present, and
it was but just that a penal regulation should be as
limited as possible in the construction put upon it by the
House. Looking to the particular case before them,
and looking also to the practice which had prevailed in
this very session, he did not feel that lie would be juss
tified in opposing the motion of the Hon. Member for
Finsbury. He .beliered that it appeared in the Appendix
to the Votes for that day, that a petition had been pre-
sented against the poll tax, which was, more strictly than
the income tax, a tax far the service of the year.
The Right Honourable Baronet made -a distinction the
other night, which was perfectly valid, when he said
that this usage should he applied to cases where it was
proposed to raise supplies for the year, and not to cases
in which it was proposed to raise them for commercial
purposes. On the whole he felt himself bound to vote
against. the Right Hon. Baronet on the present occasion.
Sir J. GRAHAM, said he could not understand the
distinction which had been drawn by his Right
Honourable Friend the Member fur the West
Riding of Yorkshire, but it was quite clear
that he intended to vote against • what had been
the usage of the House for 150 years. He (Sir James
Graham) would not trouble the House with any declara-
tion of his sincere respect for the general right of the
subject to petition; but on the other hand he could na
conceal from himself the vast importance of respecting a
usage which bore date from the period of the Revolution,
when the rights and liberties of the people of this coun-
try had been so nobly vindicated and so recently trium-
phant. For 150 years, upon grounds which were
clearly intelligible, this usage. had been uninter-
rupted. It was quite true that it was accompa-
nied with right of speech, but all the constitutional
authorities agreed in stating, that had the practice been
to receive petitions it would be impossible for the ser-
vants of the Crown to caprtrzutiharro_ugahu.dthaitt liwoatsisethaenyursruaaxl
be of un
unpopular.—(Hear, hear.) He,
fateßill Tax
xmi
Billsh t b
toe
(Sir James Graham) could not therefore confine
his view to the narrow circumstances of the
present moment—(Hear, hear, hear)—but as a
servant of the Crown, it was .his duty to consider what
would be the effect of the first 'departure from the
established usage.—(Hear, hear, hear.) He found
the invaluable and inalienable right of the people
to present petitions restricted in the peculiar case
of the progress of a Tax Bill through Parliament.
If this House departed from the ancient and established
usage of Parliament, which restricted the tight of the
presentation of petitions during the progress of a
Tax Bill, supposing, •in any future Parliament,
• the more ancient practice should be broken through,
and the modern usage resumed of presenting petitions
against Tax Bills, he then felt that the - power
of the Crown, in cases of great emergency:
on which the fate of this country might
was gone—the power of the Crown surrendered
as uptita.
depend,
the present servants of her Majesty.
Thatre incur ;
sponsibility which he for ono was not prepared
and Viking the most dispassionate
question, without reference to present cit:ett
viewm
s°tfa n et:lse
but to what he believed to be the hiteessst ''f Liecountry.t
d i
and the prerogative of the Crown, be considered
consistent with his muse a duty—of the weight