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

THE TARIFF.

Mr. WARD wished to know if the report which had
been circulated with regard to one of the changes in the
tariff were true. It had been reported that it was in-
tended to increase the duty on foreign salmon 100 percent.
Sir R. PEEL had not heard of any such report, and
assured the Hon. Gentleman that the report was without
foundation.

TIII3 CANTON RANSOM.
Mr. BLEWITT wished to ask the Right Honourable
Baronet if he had any objection to state to the House
what had been the amount received on account of the
Canton ransom, in sterling money. The present state-
ment in dollars was very confused.
Sir R. PEEL said that as soon as the Sycee silver
should be coined, he would let the Hon. Gentleman know
its value in British -currency. In answer ,to a question
which was put by the Noble Lord last night, he (Sir R.
Peel) had replied from recollection ; he would now give
the Noble Lord more particular information on-the sub-
ject. There was a sum of 323,1931. from miscellaneous
revenue. He had told the Noble Lord that he was under
an opinion that a great part of that had arisen from the
ransom money. He would now, however, more particu-
larly account for that sum. There was for surplus fees,
20,7701. •, incidental, 501. ; hereditary revenue, .373/ ;
Sycee silver, 302,0001. There was an additional sum,
for which credit was riot given.
Mr. BLEWITT wished to ask the Right. Hon. Baronet
another .question, as to
.what was to be done with the •
junks, &c., which had been taken as prizes in the Chinese
Seas. He hoped. no application of the money would take
place, till he had an opportunity of speaking on the
subject.
Lord JOHN RUSSELL slid, perhaps the Hon.
Gentleman was not aware that an Order in Council had
been passed for the disposal of those prizes.
Mr. BLEWITT then wished to know whether, in pur-
suance of that order, proper instructions had been given
relative to the adjudication of the prizes.
Sir R. PEEL said that no doubt proper instructions
were sent. when the Order in Council was made.
INCOME TAX—PRESENTATION OF PETITIONS.
Mr. T. DUNCOMBE then rose to move—" That the
practice of this House, which precludes the presentation
of petitions upon the subject of any tax or duty under its
consideration, be discontinued." 'The Hon. Member said
that up to the time when the Right Hon. Baronet
(Sir Robert Peel) made his financial state.-
ment, few individuals in that House, but much
fewer out of it, were aware that it had ever been the prac-
tice of the House to refuse to hear petitions upon the
subject of a tax. It was surprising that the
Members of the Reformed Parliament should at-
tempt to shelter themselves under an inconsistent and
almost obsolete practice by refusing to hear petitions-
hick were presented to it by those very individuals who
had placed them in the position which they occupied.
He was prepared to maintain and to insist upon the right-
of the people to address that House upon any subject
which they might think proper. He contended that the
people had as indubitable a right to address the House
by petition upon the subject of taxation, as upon
any. measure of general legislation relating to the
right, the liberty, or the property of the subject.:--
(I fear.) He took his stand upon those broad grounds,
and he was not prepared to compromise the principle in
the slightest degree. Now it would be necessary to trace
the origin of the practice in question, the source from
which it sprung, bow it had been enforced, and when
and where it had been departed from. The Honse would.
observe that there was no standing order or rule whatever
for the course. which they were then pursuing in re-
jecting the petitions- of the people ; and, he thought,
When it was shoirn how tame practice originated,
neither the ,House nor the public could be o'herwisc
than surprised 'at the slender grounds on which they
presumed to reject the petitions of those who had placed
them there to protect their property and their interests.
It appeared from Hatseli's precedents, which he trusted
the House would consider no mean authority, tliat
.this practice originated very shortly after the revolution
Hof 1638.. The first time the right appeared to have, been
luestioned was in 1689. On the 15th of April a petition
was presented from the French Protestant tomisters pray-
ing for relief. It was finally resolved that this petition
-should be withdrawn. In. 1796 a resolution Wll3 passed
in a Committee of Ways and Means for imposing a
tax of ten per cent- ad valorem on articles
of woollen. manufacture. A cloud of petitions was pre-
sented against it, and although the resolution was car-
ried in the Committee of Ways and Means, the-
Bill was dropped ; in fact, the Bill spas never
presented at an. It appeared, then, that in 1698,
the House having felt the inconvenience of admitting
:petitions that had been presented in a preceding
session, refused to receive those petitions on a
a
tax then depending: .In 1708 a tax was proposed upon
coals and eulm ; petition was presented against it and
was refused, by a majorityof 113 against the presentation.
It appears that the House subsequently departed from
this rule, for on the 14th of February, a petition was
presented from various merchants and traders against
a duty on calicoes, and the petitioners asked to
be heard against the tax by counsel. That was refused,
but the petition itself was ordered to lie on the table till
the second
.it of the Bill. On the 21st of
May, 1711, it was proposed to raise 1,500,0001
by a duty on vellum, parchment, and' cards ; a petition
against the duty was presented by merchants trading in
Genoa paper, by stationers and haberdashers. That
petition was not only received, but was ordered
to be referred for consideration to a Committee
of the whole House on the Bill. Now that practice of
receiving petitions went even farther than he asked to
go, for the petition of 1711 wa.s not only received, but
was ordered to be referred to a Committee of the
whole House. In 1732, the question was again
raised. The inhabitants of Rhode Island, in that
year, presented. a petition. against the Sugar Colonies
Bill ; the_ same objection was taken to the peti-:
tion as in 1698 ; and a Mr. Winnington, who •ap,
peared to be then a great authority on the Ministerial
side of the House, said the practice of receiving such a
petition - had never been followed except- upon
extraordinary occasions, as it had been found in- I
convenient from the time bf the House being
occupied in discussing frivolous petitions, This ob-