The Sun.
London, England, 1842-04-09 00:00:00

tc: as anxious'. that that practice should as speedily as
possible be discontinued, and because he thought '
eat object would be best promoted by an adjournment.ll
t 11 Monday.—(Hear.) He believed that no advantage had
been gained b_Y Hon. Members opposite, nor.coulci they '
r sin any without making the. practice a Standing Order
or the House: He hope'st that this question would be
tried time after time. lt had not `by
the smothered 'h
the majority of 31, and if lion. Mentbers persevered in
pressing the right. of the people, there was little doubt
that they would eventually sueeeed.(Hear, hear.)
Mr. T. DUNCOMBE said he had stated, in asking
the. House to receive this petition, that if there had
been any Standing Order of - the House, any rule or re-
gulation, any lex scripta against presenting a petition
osi the subject of . a tax under the consideration of the
louse, he would have been the last man in the House to,
oppose such-a Standing Order. But there was, in fact,
no such Standing Order or regulation.—(Hear, hear.)
There was a Standing Order against the presenta-
ti 'n of a petition asking for relief out of the public
purse, without the consent of the Government.
debate of last night showed that there wore prece-
dents on both sides—that there was not an uninterrupted
stream of precedents against the presentation of such
petitions as. that -.now under discussion. He (Mr. D.)
had shown that in 1811 petitions of this kind were not
only received but submitted to a Committee of the
whole House, -when there was under consiaeration a
I.t it for levying taxes to the amount of 1,300.0001.
to Eight Honourable Baronet quoted two or three
peesentation of such peti-
peecedents in 1795 against the
t esns ; but if the Right Hon. Gentleman looked to the
year 1815, he would not find that those petitions were
rs,jecteed nemine.contratliccute. In that year, on a divi-
elfin respecting the presentation of a petition of this na-
ture from the City of London, the numbers were, if he
were not mistaken, 108 to 69 against the presentation.
The Speaker had aid down that there was no rule or
a.anding Order against the presentation of such, but that
it was merely a usage. He (Mr. D.) maintained
th tit that usage was .not. continuous from the
lime of the Revolution. All their rules 'and
recedents, unless based on common sense and
justice, and supported by. public opinion, amounted
t nothing, and ought not to be attended to by
the House. The Hon. Member for Surrey (Mr.-Kemble)
tomid fault -with him (Mr. buncombe). because Hon.
Gentlemen came down to the House and seemed pre-
pared to suppert the presentation of the petition. He
(Mr. buncombe) certainly had stated to several of his
mends that the question should not stop there. Unless
they laid down a, Standing Order against if, day
after day, when any of his constituents or
stay other portion of the coimnunity placed a
1. Brien, such as the one now cil-esetc,,d to, in Isis hands,
he would:place that petition. before the House, and the
oslinin of its rejection by the House should rest upon
the resnonsible decision which a majority of the House
sseuld come to. He agreed . most willingly in the sug-
g stion of 'adjourning the subject to Monday next, when
tit live o'Cleels Ise would ask the Muse whether they
ould reteeiVe the petition, which, till then, he should
keew in his. possesSion.
. GIIISON wished to know. what distinction
-lea; drawn between the duties on corn and duties on in-
come, that petitions could be presented against the' one
and not against the other ? lie wished to ask the quese
iion, as the practice on the matter had not been
•rinly. agreed to. For his part, he looked upon the
e. ties on corn as much a tax upon bread, as the three
.per cent. was a tax upon income.
dir It. PF,EI, sdd that the duties on corn were not-
ertsposed in Committee of Supply for the service of
year, and therefore the general rule respect-
the preSentation ,of petitions - applied- to them ;
whereas the income tax was proposed for the service of
the year, and the practice was not to petition against
propositions of that nature.
After- a short conversation across the table between
Mr. T. DOXeoetnt, and Sir R. PEEL,,
it was arranged that the Debate should be adjourned
until .Mondae. at Five o'Clock.
THE TARIFF.
Mr. R. t'ALMF,TZ presented a petition from the land-
owners and. tarniera of Berkshire, expressive of their
-,irs te!the petipee;sl alterations in tho'Corn-laws, and of
tl 3 alterations in the tariffesith regard to the duties on
the importation of cattle and previsions, and praying the
House nut LO:COl:St`ilt to thosealterations.

MA itINE IN6URANCE.

Captain PECIIT;LL presented a - petition fiom the
i erchants and' Shipowners of Brighton, Worthing;and
Gniehester; praying that the duties payable on the effect-
ing of marine. insurances might be lowered.
INCOME TAX.

Mr. G. W. WOOD had a petition to present on the
tbject of the income tax, which, he thought, did not fall
ithin the rule laid djwn laSt evening for the guidance
or the House in. these matters. It was not a petition
B:.;ainst the income tax. Its prayer was, that the House
would adopt every other expedient for equalising the re-
'enue and the expenditure before resorting to a measure
to demoralising,- unjust, and inqui:dtorial as' an income
.‘x.—(Cheers and laughter froth the Ministerial benches.)
The SPEAKER, said that the petition came within
ilte rule, and therefore could not be received.