The Sun.
London, England, 1842-04-08 00:00:00

THE SUN, LONDON, FRIDAY EVENING, APRIL B, 1842.

then very drunk. The Coroner—Can you tell the Jury how
it was the deceased was driven to the deplorable state in which
she appears to have been? Witness—She only gave way by
threats ',The - Coroner—From whom ? Witness—From my
sister-irr-law ; she would take the poker and threaten. to dash
her mother's brains out if she did not go and pledge things to
get drunk. A Juror—What do you think canned the act she
has committed? Witness—The ill usage of her daughter.
The Coroner referred to the facts, and observed, it was
one of the most painful and disgusting disclosures he had ever
heard. The Foreman said he was of opinion the daughter
ought to be taken into custody. The Inspector of Police—
We shall readily do that, if any one will give her in charge,
but at present we arc not justified in doing so, and I may add,
this case will not Le lost sight of. The Jury consulted for a
long while before they could agree to a verdict, and then
handed the following special return to the Coroner :—" We
find that the deceased destroyed herself, being at the time in
a s'ate of temporary insanity arising from the ill-treatment
on the pat of her daughter, and the depravity of her son
James." The police have found an immense number of du-
plintes of property belonging to persons in high rank at the
w st end of the town ; but at present it is not advisable to state
their names.

IMPERIAL PARLIAMENT.
HOUSE. OF. LORDS, Aran. 7.
Their Lordships re-assembled for the first time after
the Easter recess to-day, at Five o'Clock.
The Earl of BANDON presented a number of peti-
tions from Youghal,. Cork, and other places in Ireland,
against the national system of education in that country,
and in favour of the Biblical School Society of Ireland.
The NOBLE LORD ' also presented, on behalf of the
Earl of Bolen, several petitions—from London-
derry, against Church patronage in Scotland ;
and from Dublin and other places, praying for the
ratification of Presbyterian marriages contracted in
Ireland previous to the late decisions of the Judges in-
that country. •
'MESSAGE FROM THE HOUSE OF COMMONS.
Mr. BAILEY and others brought up from the House of
Commons a Bill for the improvement of the navigation
of the Severn, and several other' private Bills, which
were read a first time.
The Earl of. RIPON brought in a Bill to amend the
laws relating to principals and factors, which was read a
first time.
The Earl of WICKLOW presented a petition from a
congregation of Presbyterians in Dublin, praying for an
alteration of the law. relating to their marriages. He
thought that when the law came to be understood,"it
would be found that there was no occasion whatever to
alter it.

MESSAGE FROM THE COMMONS.
_Mr. GREENE, and other Members from the Commons,
brought up the Sale of Parochial Property Bill, the Ex-
chequer Bills Commission Bill, the Spirit Duties (Ire-
land) Bill, and several other Bills, which were read a
first time.
ECCLESIASTICAL RESIDENCES BILL.
This Bill went through Committee, and the Report
was ordered to be brought up to-morrow.
IMPRISONMENT FOR DEBT.
Lord CAMPBELL presented a petition from 265 pri-
soners in Whitecross-street, praying for the abolition of
imprisonment for debt, except in cases of fraud. From
his own experience, and the investigations which had
taken place, he was convinced of the truth of the state-
ments contained in this petition, and he concurred in
its prayer.
The Marquis of NORMANBY moved that the return
of the appointments of Magistrates Ity the present Go-
vernment should be printed.—Ordered.
SLAVERY.
Lord BROUGHAM presented a petition from the
Anti-Slavery Society of Belfast; praying that
slavery might be abolished in th<East Indies ; also a
petition from another Anti-Slavery.Society, praying
that the importation of Hill Coolieg into the Mauritius
should not be allowed. Also, 'a ',petition from certain
Literary Institutions4ln the!: Metropolis, praying that
such institutions should;bq exempt from the income tax.
CHURCH PATRONAGE IN SCOTLAND.
The Duke of ARGYLD taid that he should not bring
orward his motion respecting Church patronage in Scot-
land this Session.
Lord CAMPBELL rejoiced very much that the Noble
Duke had deferred his motion, and he hoped the Noble
Duke would consider the propriety of abandoning any
attempt at legislation on the subject.
A NOIAJLE ,LORD presented a petition from a place in
Norfolk;„praying that no alteration might be made in
the present Corn-laws.
LAW OF EVIDENCE.
The Earl of SHAFTESBURY postponed the second
reading of the Bill relating to the law of evidence to this
day week, in consequence of the absence of Lord Denman.
EXCHEQUER BILLS.
The Duke of WELLINGTON moved the first read-
ing of the Exchequer Bills Bill, and gave notice that he
should move the second reading of the Bill on Tuesday
next.
The House then Adjourned.

HOUSE OF COMMONS, APRIL 7.
The SPEAKER took the Chair a few minutes before
Four o'Clock.

Mr. AINSWORTH obtained leave to bring in a Bill
to extend the polders of the Bolton and Preston Railway.
Mr. PACKS presented a petition from a place in Lei-
cestershire, against the grant to the College of May-
nooth.

Lord JOCELYN presented a petition from the tim-
ber merchants of King's Lynn, praying that 12 months
might elapse, before the present duties on timber were
interfered with.

Sir J. TROLLOPE presented a petition from Lincoln,
against the proposed tariff.
Mr. BAILEY presented a petition from Worcester to
the same effect.

The Marquis of DOURO presented a petition from
Norwich, praying for commercial reform.
Mr. lIODGSON presented a petition from Neocastle-
upon-Tyne, against the proposed duty of 4s. per ton
upon coal. _ _ _

Mr. BROTHERTON presented four petitions from
Cheshire, Oldham, and Yorkshire, praying that females
might, not be employed in coal mines.

Mr. AINSWORrTII presented a petition from Maryle-
bone, praying that Vauxhall, Waterloo, and Southwark
bridges might be thrown open.
PRESBYTERIAN MIXED MARRIAGES.
Mr. SHARMAN CRAWFORD presented a petition
from the Minister and Congregation of the Presbyterian
Church of Magherally, in the County of Down, referring
to the decision of the Irish Judges on the subject of
Presbyterian Marriages, and praying for a law to make
valid all the future, as well as the past; marriages solem-
nized by Presbyterian ministers in such cases. Also, a
petition from the Minister and Members of the Indepen-
dent Chapel in Donegal-street, Belfast, with a like
prayer.

_
DUTY ON LEATHER.
An Holy. MIPIRER on the Ministe-ial benches pre-
sented a petition from the tanners, dithers, and leather
trade of some place in Chester, against any alteration in
the duty on leather. _

to the resignation of the late Lord Corehouse, he was
aware that it might be alleged that these papers were of
a private nature, • and could nc4 be given. But .
in answer to that objection, he might be allowed
to say that he held a copy of the correspondence
in his hand; and if there was any difficulty about
the matter, there they weie.--(Cheers.) There
could, therefore, be no reluctance to accede to the motion
upon that head. lie had copies of the letters with the
names of the writers attached to them. He found that no
less than six Scotch Judges were either the authors,
or alluded to in them ; among shorn were. the
late Lord President and the newly elected Lord
Justice Clerk. There were also six Peers of Par-
liament, and several Members of that House •, and among
the names, he found those of Sir R. Peel, Sir G. Clerk,
Sir William Rae, the late Lord Advocate, and others.
The papers were first distributed by the individuals who
commenced the correspondence; those were the late Lord
Corehouse, and the late Lord-Advocate Rutherford. Under
these circumstances he (Mr. Wallace) hoped that it
would not be alleged against him that he had
endeavoured to bring out papers which ought to be con-
sidered as private correspondence. But, if such an
allegation should be made, he, standing there,
unaccused of having • over done anything un-
gentlemanly, or unworthy of a Member of that
House, would pledge himself to , exclude anything
from these documents which should be considered, upon
a scrutiny, to relrlte to private characters or private
affairs. Having premised this statement, he would flow
assure the House that the motion he was about to make
was of a most important character, deeply involving
the interests of his own country, and of the
Members of the legal profession, for every lion. Member
Must know that no more solemn question could be
brought before the House than one for the reform of the
1 Courts of Law. That was his object, and he would en-
j deavour to fulfil it, and as much in those documents
would sustain his opinions, he was anxious that
they should be laid before the House. He main-
tained that the Judges of Scotland had very little to do,
and that they did not do that little perfectly; in truth, as
these papers would show, they might rather bo called
gentlemen at large. They interfered in questions that
should not concern them, and were much concerned
in pointing out how patronage should be distributed, and
in other matters which prevented them from doing pro-
perly the little public business they were charged with
by the country. If the motion were resisted, he should read
in reply—his sole object being to establish the truth of
his allegations,, of there being toe many Judges in
Scotland, by whom the people were very badly served—
a few sentences from the pamphlet ; but he conceived that
as a matter of right, what he required would be agreed
to. Under these circumstances he would move, " That the
correspondence respecting the resignation of the late
Lord Corehouse, formerly a Judge in the Supreme Court
of Scotland, and now retired on a pension for life—as
the same was circulated by the said Lord Corehouse and
the' late Lord Advocate for Scotland, and was by them
'sent to many Members of both Houses of Parliament—
be laid on the table of this House."
Dr. BOWRING seconded the motion.
The motion having been put,
Sir J. GRAHAM said that the lion. Member had
stated that if the motion he ' made were opposed, he
would not occupy the time of the House. and
he had proved his intentions by the brevity of
the observations with which he had prefaced
his motion. The lion. Gentleman had admitted
that the correspondence was of the nature of a private
correspondence, and he was right in so describing it.
He recollected that on a late occasion when a
motion was made respecting the allowance for the
late Lord President of Scotland, the very cor-
respondence in question was wanted, and it
could not be found, though he had himself made diligent
search for it. He was anxious to get a copy of it, but
he could not find a single paper in London on the sub-
ject. He should, therefore, oppose the motion of the
Hon. Member.

Mr. WALLACE was not inclined to forget what he
had before said as to his anxiety to save the time of the
House. Although the Right Hon. Gentleman hat said
that he (Mr. Wallace) might use the papers in his pos-
session at a fitting opportunity, he gave the Right Hon.
Gentleman no thanks for ' his permission, for he
should have done. that of his own accord. He
would select such parts of the correspondence as he
thought fit, and put them in the hands of those who
ought to possess them. He dittnot wonder at the Right
Hon. Gentleman objecting to his motion. nor should
he wonder at certain Right Honourable Gentlemen
on his (Mr. Wallace's) side of the House doing the same;
for these papers showed that there had been a great deal
of jobbing on both sides ; and he knew as an indepen-
dent Member that when such motions were brought fc,r-
ward they were generally obnoxious to both sides of the
House. He should therefore, on the 19th of April, make
any use he pleased of this paper, and of all others of a
like dessription. At present he should withdraw his
motion.

jection could not apply at present; in those days
petitions on aßill could be discussed, and sometimes one pe-
tition would occupy a whole evening, consequently nothing
could be easier than to defeat a tax by petitions of that
description. NO decision of this period could apply
against him (Mr. buncombe), since the role of the
House now was, that a petition must be presented by
merely stating its object, without any debate arising on it
In the year 1733, a petition from the City of London
was submitted to that House against the then pending
Excise Bill. It was moved not only that the petition
should be laid upon the table, but that Counsel should be
heard at the Bar against the Bill. A long debate then arose.
Mr. Pulteney;"Sir \ Villiam Wyndham, and others, spoke
in favour of the petition being received ; while the then
Chancellor of the Eichequer, Sir Robert Walpole, the
Attorney-General, and the Solicitor-General spoke
open the other side. The arguments used upon
that occasion, were the same as those used in the pre-
ceding Session—namely, that the time of the House
would be too much occupied with a multitude of peti-
tions, and that public business would thus be incon-
veniently impeded. The matter ended, however, by the
petition being allowed to be left on the table, while
COunsel was refused to be heard at the' bar, but
only upon a narrow . division, the numbers
voting with the Government being 214, and the,
numbers voting on the popular side being 197 ; so
that there had been a majority of only 17. In April
1733, more petitions came in from Nottingham, which
litre ordered to be laid upon the table ; and
the Excise Bill was ultimately dropped. Now this
(*tom of not receiving petitions • has certainly ob-
tained ever since that period, with a few isolated ee-
ceptions in cases when the petitions had slipped in with-
out the observation of the House. But the question
had never afterwards been discussed until the month
of May, 1815. On the Ist of May in that year a
petition was presented against the then pending Pro-
pert, -tax Bill. That petition was certainly rejected ;
but it was rejected not only on the ground of its relating
to a tax then pending, but also because it was supposed
to be disrespectful and libellous in some of its allegations.
Sir W. Curtis presented that petition ; it was
rejected by 107 votes to 29. But there had
been no rule laid down upon the subject.
and it had always been left to the discretion of the House
to receive or to reject such petitions. From the year
1815 he would pass to what had occurred the other
day. On the 22d of last month he found that
there had been offered to the House a petition
from the parish of St. Clement's, Eastcheap; and also a
petition from Royston against the proposed duty upon
income. The Speaker, upon that occasion, said
that it appeared to him, from the proceedings of
the Committee :of Ways and Means, which were
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 meeting the ex-
penditure of the year, and that according to the
established rule of the House no petition against
a tax for the service of the year, under consideration,
could be received by the House. That was the rule laid
down by the Speaker, and he did not complain of the de-
cision, for he believed the practice alluded to had, with
slight interruption, prevailed for a considerable time.
He might raise a special plea in the present case, if he
did not think it would be unworthy the importance and
justice of the case. The Speaker had laid it down, that
against taxes for the service of the year petitions
were inadmissible ; but the Right Hon. Baronet had told
them that this was not a tax for the service of the
year, but a tax for three years.—(Hear, hear.) He
might use that as a plea, but he thought it would be
a mere quibble, when he rested on the broad constitu-
tional principle that the people had a right to be heard
by petition In all cases. Let the House look to the manner
in which this tax had been introduced. The measure by
which the people were to be taxed, to the amount of
four millions, was first mentioned to the House
on the 11th of March, and the Friday following
the House went into Committee of Ways and
Means ; and from that hour the doors of that
House were closed against the petitions of the
people.—(Hear, hear.) No doubt it was convenient
to a Minister, who was - unpopular with the coun•
try, that such a rule as the one in question should
be enforced ; but it was not the less a gross in-
fringement of the rights of the people. He concluded
by moving, rrhat*the practice of this House, which
precludes the presentation of petitions on the subject of
any tax or duty under its consideration, be dis-
continued."
Mr. 'WALLACE seconded the motion without any
observation.
Sir GEORGE CLERK was not prepared to contest
the argument of the Hon. Gentleman, that the doors of
the House ought to be open to the petitions of the people.
But the Hon. Gentleman himself had shown that from
the earliest period, since the Revolution, the rule to which
he (Mr. D.) objected had been maintained. Very soon
after the Revolution, a greater number of petitions were
preSented than had ever before been known. It was
found inconvenient to have so many petitions against the
Money Bills of the year, and after a few years the evil
was found to be so growing, that the House in 1693 came to
the resolution that no petition should be received against
a Money Bill under the consideration of the House.
After a great number of decisions by the House,
it seemed to have been admitted by all parties
in the House to have been a wise and salutary
rule respecting the restrictions of the presentation
of petitions. He thought the House also had been ex-
tremely jealous in preventing such restrictions on the
presentation of petitions going beyond that line which
was originally drawn in 1693. There had been
apparent deviations from that rule. Those deviations
arose from doubts entertained by the House as to
whether the Bills under discussion, and which had
been petitioned against were, properly, Money
Bills, or rather only Bills for the regulation of
trade, by the provisions of which additional burdens
might be thrown upon the people, either by increasing
the actual amount of duty to he levied on certain arti-
cles, or by imposing regulations according to the ma-
chinery of the Act of an inquisitorial nature. He thought
that if the Honourable Member would look to
the discussion in 1733 he would see that upon that oc-
casion, when a Bill was introduced by. Sir R. Walpole
for regulating the duties on tobacco, the point considered
was, whether it was a Money Bill, or one merely for the
regulation of trade. The precedents previous to that time
were ordered to be read during the discussion upon the Bill;
thus it would be seen that, from the year 1693
downwards, that rule obtained. Now, upon what
principle had the House adopted that rule. It
was upon this. If the House of Commons found
it necessary, in order to raise a supply in Com-
mittee of Ways and Means, to have recourse
to the . disagreeable alternative of imposing fresh
taxes, there could be no doubt that the im-
position of fresh taxes would be felt as a
burden and a grievance by every class of the com-
munity. Now, the House would not require to
be informed, by petitions, that the people felt
the impositions of those taxes to be a grievance.
It was for the House to judge, whether, after having
voted large supplies to the Crown, and seeing no
other mode of raising those supplies but by the
imposition of fresh taxes, they were to desist from the
course of proceeding which they had adopted, merely
because it was felt by some individuals to be a grievance?
After the year 1733, the rule having been com-
pletely established, an attempt was made at devi-
ation from it ; for, he believed, that in
1733, when an additional duty was sought to be
laid on receipt stamps, the City of London presented
a petition against the Bill introduced for that
purpose, and the petition was received under those
circumstances. It was the privilege of the City
of London to present potions to . that House
by their Sheriffs who, for that purpose, came to the bar
of 'the House. No Member stated the substance
of those petitions, and the petition to which he now
alluded, was merely laid upon the table, and read
by the clerk, and consequently no question could
arise from the precedent of a petition so presented.
Mr. Fox had been present in the House on that oc-
casion, and no man in the then, or in the pre-
sent Mouse. of Commons, could be more jealous of
the rights of the people than Mr. Fox--had
said, that although he had considered the sub-
ject of petitioning the House of ' Comm Ons to
he an invaluable right of Englishmen, yet
if they 'permitted every man to petition nil :lime
every new tax, it would be- impossible for the House
to go on with the business. Mr. Fox -even went
still further, and said that the more universally a tax
should be petitioned against, the greater argiiment,
in his mind, did that constitute in its favour, because it
proved that the tax acted impartially—that it was an equal
tax, pressing equally upon all classes. This practicecould
not be attended by any inconvenience, because if a tax
were proposed, those whii were affected by it had
an ample opportunity of making their representa-
tives aware of their feclin;s on the subject. No
evil could possibly arise from refusing to receive
petitions upon this subject, as all constituencies had
an opportunity of instructing their representatives.
Was there anything he would ask in the tax, which
his Right Honourable Friend hail proposed, to call
upon that House to depart from what had been
their practice for the last 150 years. He did not com-
plain of the course which Honourable Members opposite
hail adopted before the recess for the purpose of delay-
ing the progress of the Resolutions. They had taken the
opportunity of the recess to ascertain the sentiments of
their constituents, and therefore whenever they should
come to a division on the subject, every Member would
be as well prepared to state the sentiments of his con-
stituents, as if they had had an opportunity of
presenting petitions on the subject. He was not
aware of any new arguments against this tax.
He . conceived that if they refused the right in that
instance, where the interests of a particular class
of trades were concerned, the greater reason they
had to refuse it when the tax was universal
in its application to all classes, and included all
persons. It was for these reasons—because he
heard no argument from the Honourable Member
for - Finsbury, showing that inconvenience had re-
sulted from the rule—because it had been adopted by
the House of Commons for 150 years, and had been
found by all parties a very expedient rule—be-
cause it had not been rashly adopted by
them—because it was likely to secure the
rights and privileges of the subject and of the country ;
it was for all those reasons that he opposed the
motion :of the Honourable Member. However easy it
might be to introduce topics of popular declamation
with regard to the rights of petition, it would in
his (Sir G. Clerk's) opinion be very inconvenient to
receive petitions on those occasions alluded to by the
Hon. Meinber, and would be very detrimental to the
public service.

M. MACAULAY said, that however anxious the
Right Hon. Baronet appeared to be with regard to the
right'of individuals -to petition, his speech seemed to be
directed against the right to petition in general. The
Right lion. Baronet would give the right to petition
whenludividuals were taxed ; but when. the • Weil

press most grievously and most heavily, and when
it would be most grievous upon every one, lw
would take it away altogether.—(Hear, hear.) The
Right Hon. Baronet cautioned them against the practice
of declamation on the right of petition. Now he
(Mr. -M.) would ask any. Hon. Member whether
he had ever heard the right of petition spoken
of in more 'declamatory language —(Cheers)—whether
he had ever heard the peculiar sacred, inalienable, he-
reditary privilege of the people more lightly spoken of
than it hail just now been by the Right 11011. Baronet?—
(Hear, hear, and cheers.) The only difl'erence between
the declamation of the Right Hon. Baronet and
that wilch he censured on the other side being that
the declamation of the Right Hon. Baronet was a prelude
to an attack upon it, instead of an introduction to its sup-
port. He (Mr. M.) would take the right of petition
at the value the Right Hon. Baronet put upon it. He
(Mr. M.) wanted no other motion than that brought
forward by the Hon. Member for Finsbury, to show
the importance of the high inalienable right of
petition, which the declarative of the Right Hon. Ba-
ronet gave the House reason to fear- he would withhold
—the right he would take at the valuation of the Right
Hon. Baronet, leaving his arguments to the attention of
the House.—(Cheers and laughter.) He (Mr. Macaulay)
• conceived there were only two cases in which the House
ought to refuse to receive a petition. The first was,
when a petition was brought before them, expressed in
indecent and improper language ; the second, when a
petition prayed them to do something which it was nut
within the province of the House to do ; as, for example,
supposing it to be po;sible an Hon. Member were in-
duced to present a petition praying the House to stay
an action of 'ejectment. The proper answer to give in
this case would be, that this was a judicial matter, and,
that, therefore, the house could not interfere.—(Hear.)
Was the present a matter ofjurisdiction ?—(Oh.) Was
it not, in fact, a matter in which the House of Com-
mons only could decide, and one of those privileges
which the other branches of the Legislature had not?—
(Hear, hear, and cheers.) When her Majesty commenced
the Session, she addressed her statements and advice re-
specting our foreign and domestic policy to both
Houses, "My Lords and Gentlemen ;" but when she
came to .matters connected with the right of taxation,
she reeognised one of the most sacred and important
principles of the Constitution, and the Queen addressed
them as " Gentlemen of the House of Commons."—
(Laughter, and mutual cheers.) To them only did
her Majesty recommend these great questions for con-
sideration.—(Cheers from both sides.) Look at these
facts, and then see the operation of the principle the
Right Hon. Baronet contended for. The people were
everywhere sending in petitions against the income
tax to the House of Lords—to those whom the Queen
never addressed on such questions—to those-who, under
one of the most sacred principles of the Constitution
could not originate any mcasure of finance—all that the
House of Lords could do in such case being to throw out
a Bill sent them by the Commons, while they could not
correct the smallest of its details, their utmost power in
modifying being to recommend tin alteration.—(Cheers.)
But was the House of Commons to be the only branch
of the Legislature which must be precluded from receiv-
ing petitions praying them to execute their own proper
functions ?—(Cheers.) For what earthly reason could
they refuse to admit a petition which was likely to give
rise to a discussion on a Measure of taxation ? This
course might be proper under the old system, but now,
when its practice, when very great, and he would ac-
ktipwledge, very beneficial innovations had been made
in the old practice ofParliament, and for which he had
felt it his duty to vote, the reception of such a petition as
that now in question would not be productive of the slightest
inconvenience. Let the Right lion. Bart. recollect what he
said a few nights since about the old forms of the House,
his respect for ancient usages, and 'his veneration for
precedents 150 years old, and then proposed the discon-
tinuance of a debate brought on by the presentation of a
petition, on which he (Mr. Macaulay) voted with him,
and now appealing to those principles, he (Mr.
Macaulay) would assure the Right Hon. Baronet that
if the practice now introduced were persevered in, the
people would soon cease to petition the House.—(oh.)
'That was well argued. Having removed that, the only
inconvenience which could arise from petitions of that
sort being presented to the House, he should think
himself inexcusable if he were to give a vote
for the Ricrht Honourable Baronet. And let not
the Rights Honourable Baronet think that the
coerce proposed would prevent inconvenience. He
would find the contrary. There was nothing more
easy than to have presented 100 or 200 petitions to-
night on the income tax when nothing else was
doing. He had petitions from Edinburgh, praying that
petitions against the income .tax might be presented.
Their constituents met and passed resolutions, which they
prayed might be presented ; and Gentlemen who
represented, large constituencies must and would
stand up and receive these petitions even in
their speeches, night after night ; they could not be
prevented from doing that; he (Mr. Macaulay) should do
it on the first night of the income tax debate, and others
would do it too.—(Hear.) If the petitions of thepeople
were not to be received in a Parliamentary and
constitutional way, they would be heard in
another way. He never made a vote with
a clearer conscience in his life than the
vote he should give On this subject. He thought the
country was much indebted to the Hon. Member who
had broug;,t forward this motion.—(Hear, hear.) He
thought the case so clear that he did not believe that
any Ministry could have a majority in opposition to it ; at
any rate the people were much obliged to the Hon. Member,
because if they carried the motion they would gain a great
privilege, and if they lost it, they would have gained a useful
warning.
Captain HAMILTON said he would vote with the Hon.
Member for Finsbury if be thought that the people were likely
to suffer by the loss or rejection of his motion; but he did not
think that likely to be the case ; he did dot think that the
question affected the people directly or indirectly. There was
an Hon. Member opposite who he believed intended to -intro-
duce a new Reform Bill. He would like to know how many
of the new constituents would be affected by a tax on incomes
of 1501. per annum.--( Hear, hear.) The working classes of
this country felt no interest whatever in this question. On
the whole, he did not think that any satiffactory ground had
been stated for departing from the Standing Orders, and he must
therefore vote against the motion.
Sir R. PEEL said he should consider he was guilty of a gross
derilection of duty if he took any other course than that of
meeting the Hon. Gentleman's proposal by a direct and decided
negative.—( Hear, hear.) He should strongly oppose a depar-
ture from the constant usage of the House of Commons era•
hilt:bed at the period of the Revolution, and uniformly adhered
to by that House.—( Hear.) The House of Commons did, at a
period very shortly subsequently to the Revolution, determine
that they would not receive petitions against taxes for the cur-
rent year during the progress of the proceedings with refer-
ence to those taxes. The subject had been discussed again and
again, at different periods, and at periods when there were par-
ties in that House as keenly alive to the necessity of
maintaining popular rights and privileg_es as any
party could be at this day; the resolutions of the House of Com-
mons had been to adhere to the practice which they found es-
tablished.—( Hear, hear.) And he ( Sir R. Peel) was surprised
at the new zeal of the Right Hon. Gentleman opposite—it had
never been awakened till lie was out of office.—(Louil cheers
from the Ministerial benches.) The Right Hon. Gentleman
the Chancellor of the Exchequer, felt it to be his duty, in the
year 1840, to propose an addition of 10 percent. to the assessed
Mr. MACAULAY said he had never heard of the existence
of the rule until the present period.
Sir ROBERT PEEL—The Right Honourable Gentleman
never heard of the existence of the rule until the present
period; that wes what he said; it was unfortunate for
the public that' the Right Honourable Gentleman's informa-
tion was not procured until he was out of office —( Loud cries
of " Oh, oh,"' frOm the Opposition)—so that he had not the
means which he might have had of exercising the influence of
office to relieve them from that great grievance.—(Cheers from
the Ministerial benches.) When the Right Hon. Gentleman
was a member of the Cabinet, the Right Hon. Gentleman the
Chancellor of the Exchequer felt himself called upon, by con-
siderations of public duty,-to propose an addition of 5 per cent.
to the Customs' duties, and IU per cent. to the assessed taxes.
supposing that every party who was affected by the
Customs' duties, or the assessed taxes, had attempted to
obstruct that measure by pouring in petitions, he asked
the House whether the Right Honourable Gentlen.an,
the Chancellor of the Exchequer, would not have
availed himself of the resolution of that House which had been
enforced 150 years previously, to prevent such obstruction ?
( Hear, hear)—and he could not help thinking that the Right
Hon. Gentleman, who was Secretary cf Wax and a member
of the Cabinet at that time, would not have abandoned hii
colleagues by insisting upon a departure from the 46tiviiiilhed
practice. —( Cheers from the Ministerial benches.) At va-
rious periods, as would be seen by a refs: ence to •' Hatsell's
Precedents," attempts have been made to break through the
rule. On the 29,h if January, 1760, a petition was presented
by a number of maltsters asaiest a proposed addition to the
duty on malt. On the question that it should be brought
up being put from the Chair, it was decided in
the negative nentine contra dicente. the universal opinion of the
Hou.cbeing that it was for the public interest to adhere to the
established practice. In the year 178'3, when party feeling ran
very high, a petition was presented from the merchants and
traders of Exeter against a proposed alteration in the stamp
duties. The Horse refused to receive the petition. In 1795,
a period when Sir. Fox and Lord Grey were contending
against. Mr. Pitt—a period when the public mind was greatly
excited by the enactment of Bills which were supposed to im-
pose restraints upon the liberty of the people—a period when,
if any question of constitutional privilege had arisen, a severe
contest would have ensued—when .Mr. Pitt was charged with
designs injur:ous to the liberty of the subject, and Mr. Fo'x
and Lord Grey were contending for the maintenance of that
liberty—on the 4th of March, 1795, when the argumsnt was
that taxes were imposed to carry on a-. unjust war, and every im-
pediment was offered to those taxes, the question arose as to
the right now under consideration. On the 4th of March
Certain capitalists, importers, and dealers in foreign wine, lire.
pared a petition, praying that some proposed duties should not
be imposed on wines in stock. On the question being put
that the petition be brought up, it was decided in the nega-
tive, nentine contradicente. Even at that period, when the
popular party was led by such eminent men, the House decided
by general consent that the established usage should be ad-
hered to. Neither the leaders of that party, nor any of those
who fought tinder their banners, opposed any obstacle either
by vote or speech ; by the simple enunciation of the word "No"
the Home' decided that they would not depart from
the establish.d rule against receiving such petitions.
He hoped the House of Commons would adhere to this prac-
tice, which in all conflicts of party had been hitherto adhered
to. If he had been perfectly certain that a great number of
petitions would have been presented in favour of the income
tax, that would not in the slightest degree have influenced his
discussion on this point. He conceived that he was doing h's
duty to the House of Commons in asking the House to adhere
to the constitutional privileges of the House. He hoped that
those who had formed a portion of the late Government, and
he could net help thinking they would adhere to this privilege
that they would feel he was justified in asking the House
of Commons to adhere to a usage of this description. Our
r:ghts depended on constitutional usage—on the privileges of
Parliament the rights of the subject depended, not on Acts of
Parliament merely, but by constitutional usages. The Right
Hon. Gentleman said he was a party to imposing
the rule of Preventing debating pentioes at the time
of presentation. In consequence of the inconvenience
attending it, the Right Honourable (gentleman reconciled
himself manfully to support a restriction upon a right almost as
sacred and inalienable as the right of petitioning, viz., the
right of free expression of opinion in presenting petitions. It
was a sense of absolute public inconvenience that induced the
Right Hon. Gentleman to take that course, sad impose the
restriction. It was precisely the same motive and conviction
which led the House of OCIMMOUN at the time of the Revolu-

tion, to impose that restraint, and which had led the 1-101,refp
Commons subsequently to adhere to it. He (Sir It•er,4
felt very confident that the House of Commons, recoliiett
te fre,
the period at which the law was made—recollecting tl
quent instances in which such an adherence had becnioue
ported—he felt confident that a large majority of that I:aa
would determine net to break through a usage of this dr-reiria
tion. But even if his conviction was not well founded, MI
there should be a different result—if he stood alone, he'""7e.
feel that he was acting in fulfilment of his public duty t 6 hti
fending their rights and privileges, by assisting, as far P
humble voice could do, in the adherence to this usage. gee
Sir G. GREY said he quite agreed with the Right
~,1
Baronet when he said that that was a question irresieet';a
party consideration, and while he entertained this opinions„,
feeling ileeply convinced of its truth, he could not sul rer-e
the great warmth with which the Right Hon. Baronet 110,
ceived that motion.—( Loud cheers.) The R
Baronet asked with extreme warmth, why. his -(Sir G. r' e¢
Right Hon- Friend did not advance his opinion on tbssamito
when he was a member of the late Atlministration, wheed
late Chancellor of the Exchequer was called upon to profit' sedel
addition el Customs' duty, and why he did not move the/L.4
the rule be rescinded? Let him (Sir G. Grey) ask the 17a.,
Hon. Baronet whether, on turning to the votes of that Hoe: je
whether, recalling the' proceedings of that Haul tor
could show him (Sir G. Grey) that any Member of
House had tendered such petitions?—( Loud checll
aed
If petitions had bet n tendered to the House front constifuelo
against taxes, and the House had rejected those petitionst.'lol
there would have been some ground for the taunt that
eel
been thrown out against his lion. Friend, lie rernelaiot
no such case at previous periods, though he had eitee
many instances of it during the present Seesiein. -It spa'
to be found on the records of the House, that on retard
against the plan of the Right Hon. Baronet being teoutto
by Hon. Members on behalf of their constituencies, to
speaker had informed those lion. Members that accord'''r be
the ru?es of the House those petitions could tott 0
ri eeived, and consequently they were entered.
rejected. If precedents were all that were tuTaa
sary, lac Hon. Friend had made out a ta W arjot
case in favour of the principle for which he contended. ore
he would ask were precedents to he all in all on such a died
tion? In a case where the interests of the nation to
vitally affected, were they to be bound entirely by the Pr's: 0
of their ancestors ?—( Loud cheers)—especially in a lora
which his Right lion. Friend who sat near him had„e„ael
to demonstration—had shown by arguments against which Po-teer
heard not the slightest arguments produced from the twit
side of the House—that the reasons which influenced ala
ancestors had utterly ceased to exist. When petitions Tot
be debated day by day—and as it might be found by re b/
to the Journels of that time, petitioners prayed to be heard
courts 1 against a tax—when those petitions might he folleectesl
by a motion that counsel be called in and heard at the bar o.ltv
House against the tax,that might be such an instrument `tot
and procrastination against a Bill imposing a tax which.ot*
be required for the exigencies of the current sear, that ;tut el
ment might become so powerful in the hand; of a micerit,io,o
that House, that there might be, and he was willing 01101,
that there were sufficient grounds for restricting the
the people, that inalienable right of petitioning . which het es
gretted to have heard praised by the Right lion. -Barer Pt
terms, while it was attacked an spirit.—( Loud chelse*lagbr
*would repeat that there might be reasons for curtailing chefrla
on the ground of public inconvenience and urgent necetor
but he would say that his Right Hon. Friend hadshown to de( tee/
stration that they ought not blindly to follow the track a epi
ancestors, when the reasons for following the track hta,ii
tirely ceased, and when, if they adhered to that pritc: dal
would produce greater inconvenience than any Bde-80(8e-cork,
could be derived from restricting the right of the reta id
Great complaints were made of the delays that take aer
coming to decisions in that House, and the repeated aeaegli
ments that take place, and he felt ound to speak more sir
on that subject, as in the late division that took place el'tnr
gard to postponing the debate on the income taxe he vete ait
oh
the only occasion on which he did vote, in the rnajoritY of!
the Right Hon. Baronet. But if constituencies could uebtelcl4
their sentiments made known in that House by petition t"eaese
on the table, abstracts of which petition were printed sou' het*
in extenso, it would necessarily become incumbent on iMere,,oti'
knowing the strong feeling that existed among their Cr
tuen ts when any subject of importance arose, to addreo ta
vete
House and protract the debate indefinitely.—(Loud the
from the Ministerial benches.) Let Hon. Gentlemen ,°e; tired'
opposite side hear the eild of the sentence before they ell seed
He would say procastinate not with the view of procrasue,,a
or delay, which he utterly disclaimed, and had disclaiU),;arte.
voting against it, but simply because that other leg ',',101
course of expressing the sentiments of their coristiltleus eve
by adhering to a practice, which, however wise then, weteeaite
most unwise, because unnecessary, and further unwise' u`,'"
it must be bad to grant delay and inconveniruterok
questions in which the interests of the country were condi,
by repeated protractions of debates on questions of intift,
of this kind, and by adjournments, which, be thougheepee/A
the interest of the representatives not to carry beyond t"." 10;
absolutely necessary for the assertion of their princifilee'a" etd
often were petitions referred to in debates in that 1101P`53:ar
index of the wishes of the people ? But that courser ea,"
be adopted in the present instance. No man could spee'lots
tali
the the subject of the proposed income tax, of the sentirecol
the constituency of another man ; and, therefore, they to the
all be compelled to rise in their places, if instrueLd- bat'
by their constituents, in order to make known their '4°ool
the House. He, for one, notwithstanding the iner6ty tie
cheers of the Right Hon. Baronet, sincerely and tione'.l;ibo
precated such a course. He was for confining debates/yr
House within reasonable and moderate limits. He saW',ll°
ever, in the determination of the Right lien. Baronet 144 the
out the people from presenting petitions in the cafe one
income tax—(Hear, hear, hear)—the necessary con,e'l!ebr
which be deprecated; and not having heard the
staetig.
est reason for adhering to the former practice,
that the defence of the present practice rested simply urt
precedents which might be quoted in its favour, B,l_l 008
essential difference had taken ielace in
,the practice of u!ettaiefe;
regarding the reception of petitions, obviating.the ' 4,
nience which was the foundation of the rule. be dh?'l dof
cordially and cheerfully give his support to the met° o
Hon. Member for Finsbury.--( Cheers.)
he DO
Mr. C. BULLER raid, that he hoped the .course (f
taken on a former occasion, might be a sufficient eaeo,:, {ben
addressing a few words to the House upon the a tba,
under their consideration. The House would reitnetutlig'irewe
the Right Hon. Buronet had refused to allow of thell
delay in bringing his resolution before the House. l'et111':
Buller) confessed, that until he had aceidentally discoaenerse;
rule of 1816, he had, in common with the public gel:ett'
been- utterly unaware of its existence. He thought for
Speaker of that time might have been .mistaken urger,
subject ; and he had, therefore, asked the Bight 11°,0 Ire
tleman, who now filled the Chair, for his opinialel.a.
matter. When he had been told that, .the rule ‘ie..7,eielF,
when the resolution was once proposed, they should be I r`ekero‘l
from presenting any petitions upon the subject, he had fuel It,
fully put it to the Right Hon. Baronet whether lie oct:ita, to
postpone the Committee of Ways and Means, a° nre4-
country should have at least more, than one week to ebi; 10‘ ;
opinion upon the proposed tax. The answer of teit,
lien. Baronet was—he (Mr. Buller) should give
.e.,"
credit—remarkable for its explicitness and for its In
(Hear, hear, and laughter on the Opposition benches' )s
fir
Right 'Hon. Baronet would hear of no delay in bringa'aii '
ward his resolution. Now, in the year 1816, when tt ',e
proposed by the Opposition of .that day that the it'fijetece
should be discontinued, that great constitutional • .lil beo
(Laughter)—whose respect for popular rights otsgh' jles
model to Ministers of the present day—he and Lortfeadsit
yielded so far at least to the wishes of the party °Pre?
them as to allow the question to 'be deferred until Ills% Ile
opinion was so strongly expressed that the obnoxineue_eeette
repealed. Was there ever an attempt made to 57001,10
rule under such circumstances as the present ? It ;b
remembered that the people had had no warning tna egitea
tax would be proposed, and that no opportunity had beeeiteo.4
them of expressing their sentiments upon the subject.n-ef
the tax was one on which in former times the opini7iaer?
country had been more strongly expressed thadupon an Yte/cesee
casion. Now the Government came down and took the fir erie
surprise, giving the people only one week to exprefs.`"etrie
,)
ntons, the Right Hon. Baronet availing himself of this be
prevent them from being heard at all.—(Hear. I el,tioei I",je
At the same time, he quite agreed with the Right 'tio pet3r,
ronet as to the rule laid down, that Hon. Gentle
on one side of the House what they did on the °there., eel to
hear, and a laugh.) They seemed to hold that it wortwaiest
proper to do so.—(Laughter.) It was a rule that ape.i
more things then the question now under consider' alig.
(Hear, hear.) He thought, however, that there Nag there
4
thing in connexion with this, not so very discreditable eie,"
the Opposition side of the House ; for during t h& y
years that they sat on the other (the Ministerial) he° ice efe
occasion arose for the rule to be applied.—(Chee:s.)
noxious tax was proposed against winch tile peePlehe% tee
petition. Loud cheers, after which Sir 14°"-r o
,#)
made some observations across the table.) bees' r
(continued Mr. Buller) there was one evtare
tax introduced—the ten per cent. tax, and petitions
settled against it ; but no occasion arose notwithsta"forcrita
which this rule for excluding petitions was put bi es
(Cheers from the Opposition.) One argument Of° the
Right lion. Benoist the Member for Stamford se tore et
o bat ed
pedieney of the rule, seemed to him (Mr. B.) be elle° asei
force—that was. that the people ought not to uv that '1
petition on those subjects which they felt so acutely last
tist
would petition too much.—( Cheers and laughtere/ they °o felt
to say, that if they had the, right of petition at at, they
to he allowed to exercise it only on subjects in er,elut,er, rolc
_I, to
no interest.—( Renewed cheers and laughter.) ''...,49°Plest
unworthy of a Reformed Parliament, for it was Pa7the
prevent the people from expressing their opinion' at
eaceable and constitutional manner. milt
Mr. WALLACE, who spoke for some time aeaito lea
interruption from cries of " Divide," said he scatdeacefelar
nished, both on this occasion arid before, at the esfe,
many Gentlemen opposite, on the important nteaetr evasi, elt
"the House, and that they and the Right Honoursb ado alto,
did not come to face this question as he ought to. old
tea
great a majority. But he (Mr. Wallace) was !Dance 03
hunter, and knew from experience that when bettneirtemtioe.
mute, it was not long before they became se:tient 'Ant 1
so would be some of those sitting behind the edeetle;er
Baronet.—( Great laughter.) An Honourable it ta.
opposite (the Member for Aylesbury) had said taaaea
not the people, but the middle classes, who 01,P° 0,4?
come tax. But did the Honourable Genticui, cla?ete
that the people consisted only of the worki";7tfieer
titsl
—( Hear, hear.) That reminded him of the ns::eair.
would not allow that he awes a soldier, thinking, ,1, the
applied only to the privates, and he was therefore.a wen-
' Office:, and no soldier." —( Laughter.) But u,'"what eke
' ' Commoners of that Howe, if not time people en neoP,he
were they but the people ? Where were they but a tutoieen
House, and sent by the people there? He should /11,e
such a 'I" 0°
ch
Hon. Gentleman go to the hustings and make
y, the
,_ot
(Loud cheers.) He should like to be present NetrehaegeriLa
Gentleman, at Alesbu, or elsewhere,and take the
„ae,
him.—(Cheersof and laughter.) He (Mr. W ll„..cro)net cord
he had giviu. way to the Right Honourable:a
avanel.e,
Robert Peel That Right Hon. Gentleman h Dareu.f.
made such a> iserable appearance. The Bightrtll%eseg.',
throughout his speech had done nothing but advert
t. toe
old
If that was all that could be said in defence oftob c
old usegei'oell
were adopting—if they did nothing but revert
Huse wae
2a
defence of an unconstitutional course—then the..ateet7o,
into even greater di grace with the people than rt a :
ter by seeing the observations of the on t taee
ty
for Liskeard. lie (Mr. Wallace) sees a
.tst :o'oo as 1t...1
—( Cheers. ) His attention had been firstli droanwrnabTettivileeilb!-
the country, suffering from ill-health. .sfie.tnterfe pi' •
saw those observations he felt that if no one et raj
would be his
that (11
House,lr
t under di,. he
iiiraodwitunindehrisdpisoceuksseitonw.
heiniehilsialdiopor.epyarlieeeil,d
Finsbury showed him the resolution at present
' sion, and ticked him (Mr. Wallace) to face!
,itsert 70/
as
nt
list.hree'l‘dinetruiQbre'.reel
toNV apl iraocp'o'' ss
duty,
resolution an I;.idme ideanra't t h d
sine. he should have felt ashamed to meet
rteht of fies
shrunk from the performance of his duty
honest Scotehmen which lie reeresentee%
_lf. had ta
tionine ought to be perfectly free. Recently-
resenting
aeittueet
away the right of Members to speak on prese tat hr
thus verifying the adage of Givo them a°a now
.011_2„..
way of injustice, and they would take an ' totea.tiaj
sought to do away with the rig'tt of petitioning against brief eel
monstrous. Ihe Right lion. Baronet was right '
()n
the
timet
fi
to mannerthe inna
tisovnh i eltio heex
prreesfsus refused
their i s 0
paisa
Lei
obl to
gaurirdy
had assented to it lie would never have both tablc
le e"'"
his income tax. If he were to assent to it now the _
cecinrsli tuerfat