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
against 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than fortunate if it be repealed at the expiration of that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
whether their reception were consistent with the
forms of the House, he stated that "it appeared
by the proceedings of the Committee of Ways and
Means, 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 moaning 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!"
ST AND AR D. Mr. Thomas S. Duncomhe
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-
mentary 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 in
that shape. Thus petitioning would become com-
mensurate with the population, and Parliament
could 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 intrusion into the deliberations of those
whom. he has appointed his representatives rand
arbitrators can have no effect but to prevent or
embarrass the formation of a right judgment.
Oa the low ground of convenience, however,
petitioning against an instant tax must be mis-
cliievous. Parliament would have so many peti-
tions against such a tax, that it would he 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 be convinced by the learned and extremely able
argument of Sir George Clerk. Mr. Macaulay de-
fended Mr. Duncombe'S motion. He did not pretend
to answer Sir George Clerk ; but liberally dispensed
all the old common-places upon the right of peti-
tion, &c., treating with proportional contempt the old
usages of Parliament. Sir Robert Peel happily
remarked that the last speaker had not contended for
:.he right of petition against taxes when the admi-
nistration of which he. was a member materially
augmented the existing taxes in 1840. Sir George
Grey replied for his friend, that no petitions had been
offered in 1840. This is a fact deserving of notice,
as illustrative of the difference between a Conserva-
tive and a Whig-Radical Opposition. The Conser-
vative Opposition ever supported the public service.
it cannot be charged upon them, that they crippled
the public establishments so as to lead to the late dis-
asters ; 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 wisp men who love their country—to
keep the nation in a condition " strong to resist, but
..low to give offence," the natural policy of England,
113 it is the national charateristic of Englishmen. Mr.
Wakley, and Mr. C. Buller alSo spoke.; and Mr. Dun-
combe 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 " 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
s:ssion, reproduced it last evening in the shape of a
substantive motion for throwing the Corn-law over-
)oard, "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
regulate the wages of labour in this country, it is in-
expedient and unjust to pass a law to regulate, with a
v_...lw to raise unnaturally, the prices of food." This
mltion involved a repetition ofseveral of that enlightened
Member's usual absurdities. For example, here is a corn
law which, by the universal admission of its oppo-
nnts, may be accepted as a manifest improvement
u-nn existing legislation, inasmuch as its. inevitable
teadency must be to reduce the prices of bread stuns;
and yet this blundering block printer comes forward
gravely to propose that " it is inexpedient and unjust
to pass a law to regulate, with a view to raise unnatu-
rally, the prices of food." It is not necessary to
oTer any remarks on
.so stupid a contradiction in
sense and terms.

F 3131 THE EVENING PAPEGS OF S ITURDIY.

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 king-
d >ni against the infliction of the expected grievance ;
if ever there was a question on which the voice of
the people could most properly and most constitu-
tinally be heard, it is this, with regard to which
r R. Peel has contrived to prevent public opinion
,m 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
taat is open to them—particularly when they
a-:e ruled by a Minister who gives no intimation
or: what his plans will be until he brings them forward
—:s to form a series - of conjectures as to what ob-
r o does imposts may probably be suggested ; and
even then the ingenuity of the Premier in devising
Lee oppressive measure may be greater than the
skill of the nation in foreseeing it. Innumerable
eeeculations might have been formed as to the course
Robert Peel would have pursued, and pea-
tons founded on all of them might have been
solt 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
Soch unjust and unequal principles as that proposed
IT the Prem:er is found to have been based upon.
IA looking for the authority upon which the Speaker
h is decided that petitions against the income tax can-
be received, the discovery has been made, that it
-1.4 not a standing order, but merely a practice of the
use, that guides it in the determination it has hitherto
re-rived at to reject the prayers of the people. Now,
e',-;n bad there been a standing order expressly laying
(::own the position that petitions under such circuru-
slaces as now exist are not to be received, it would
st 11 bra comnetent to the good sense of the House, if
not imperative on its justice, to alter an order which
could only have been useful in eases which cannot now
!peen ; for as the presentation of a petition is not
ailewe 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
sus
:well, or better, to adhere to the usual course, when
there is. room to, doubt- the propriety of a departure
from it; but when reason and justice are clearly in a
eeetrary direction to that which usage has pursued,
the latter should be abandoned as speedily as possible.

STANDARD.—Mr.Thomas Duncombe last night I
attempted, in defiance of his defeat on the night pre-
ceding, to present another petition against the income
tax. The attempt was resisted, and a debate arose
upon the question, which debate is adjourned to Mon-
day. There can be no mistake as to the purpose of
Mr. Duncombe and those who support him ; that pur-
pose is, by fixing attention upon the practice or rule of
Parliament, to create an impression that, but for this
rule or practice, petitions would be universal, an impres-
sion that would be altogether fallacious. If the feel- ,
ing against an income tax is so strong and general as
Mr. Duncombe represents, why has not the country
expressed this feeling ? Petitions to Parliament, in-
deed, furnish one organ of, public feeling, but only
one, and there are fifty others ; for example, " the
great ward meeting of Farringdon Without" set an
example which might be followed, and which doubt-
less would have been followed generally, but for the
circumstance which caused that great ward meeting to
be so very thinly attended—the circumstance, namely,
that the people are not indisposed to the financial plan
of the Minister. Again, we see that the parish of
Christ Church, Surrey, has followed in the track of
the " great ward," with an attendance as meagre
andovith as little effect ; and this parish of Christ
Church meeting happens to be the only expres -
sion of opinion in the matter which the Morn-
ing Chronicle, with all its zeal and vigilance,
is able this day to record. The expected ex-
plosion in the recess ' has, in fact, miserably faiied,
and Mr. Duncombe's movement is neither more
nor less than an expedient to conceal the real
cause of failure. We have shown that the rule
of the House of Commons is founded upon sound
considerations of both principle and convenience ; but
as regards mere party interests we have cause to re-
gret its existence ; for confident we are that were the
nation polled by parliamentary petitions, or in any
other way, upon the choice of an income tax, or an
equivalent in any other taxes that have been named,
theimmense majority would decide in favour of Sir
R. Peel's measure. Mr. Duncombe has, however, no
doubt, to some extent succeeded in effecting his pur-
pose—to explain away the failure of the threatened
explosion.

CENTRAL CRIMINAL COURT.
OLD COURT.

Alexander Francis Lillie Nicholson, aged 31, postman,
was indicted for stealing three post letters containing money,
he being at the time employed in the Post-office.
The-Attorney-General, Mr. Adolphns, and Mr. Sheppard
appeared for the prosecution, and Mr. Clarkson defended the
prisoner.
It appeared that the prisoner was engaged in the Pest-office
for the purpose of taking tie letters from the stampers' table to
the sorters table. On the Ist March last the prisoner
was observed to select three letters from a bundle %shier had
been stamped, and which were lying on the staenpers' table.
The prisoner was given into custody, and searched, and the
three letter s were found upon him, all of which contained money.
Mr. Ca A ARSON addressed the Jury for the pr:snner, and
observed that the case was too clear and plain for hire to ad-
vance any defence upon it. He should however call witnesser,
who would prove that the prisoner was subject to fits of in-
sanity, and that he had on several occasions attempted suicide.
On one occasion the prisoner had hanged himself with a pocket
handkerchief, and it was with the utmost difficulty that anima-
tion hid been restored. On another occasion the prisoner had
attempted suicide lay cutting his throat. The witnesses would
further state that the prisoner's father, his brother, and his
sister, bad all died
_by their own hands. He ( Mr. Clarkson)
stated these facts, and would call witnesses to substantiate
them. for the purpose of mitigation of punishment ; and lie
hoped, anal felt confident that they would receive the fullest
consideratien of the Jury and the Court.
The prisoner's sister- in-law, together with ether witnesses,
were then caled, all of whom corroborated the statement of the
Learned Counsel.
The Learne 1 JUDGE then summed up the evidence, and the
Jury immediately returned a verdict of Guilty.
Mr. Justice Euser N n then addressed the prisoner in a very
impressive manner, and said that for the sake of public justice,
and as a warning to others, it became absolutely necessary to
inflict a most severe penalty. He earnestly entreated the pri-
soner, wherever he should be placed, to wait with patience till
that time when the Almighty should in the course of nature
deem it fit to call him hence. It appeared that the prisoner
had been providentially saved from self-destruction on more than
one occasion, and it was by the merest chance that he was not
then standing before that awful tribunal, to which we must all
one day go, and there receive the doom that awe ted that
crime which the Almighty had so expressly forbidden. His
Lordship, in conclusion, intimated that it was not probable the
full sentence of the Court would be carried into effect, but
still is was necessary that that sentence should be passed in
order that it might act all a warning to others. The sentence
of the Court was that the prisoner be transported beyond the
seas to such parts as her Majesty should, with the advice of
' her Privy Council, think fit, for the term of his natural life.
(Before Mr. Justice COLERIDGE. )
Jane Elizabeth Anscombe, aged 33. was
.placed at the bar,
charged with the wilful murder of her illegitimate child.
The prisoner was a widow, employed in the house of Mr.
Wood, of Gs eat Queen-street, Westminster. She had chil-
dren during her marriage, which were still living. The child
in question was discovered in the dust-hole with a string round
its neck. A surgeon was sent for, who examined the child,
and from his evidence it appeared the add had heen born alive.
The Learned Junnir in summing up said that if the Jury were
not entirely satisfied with the evidence with respect to the
charge of murder, it was still competent for them to return a
verdict of guilty of concealment of the birth.
The Jury immediately returned a verdict of Guilty of con-
cealment of the birth only, and the prisoner was sentenced to
eight months' imprisonment with hard labour.