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

DISTRICTS.

The HON. MEmnEB. concluded by presenting another
petition, numerously signed, from the landowers of For-
tarshire, regarding the mode in which it wa proposed to
assess the income of tenants occupying land in Scotland,
praying that in the assessments they might be placed on
a footing with the holders of land in England.
Mr. PROT HEROE presented a petition from Halifax,
deprecating the proposed reduction of the duty on fo-
reign manufactured boots and shoes.
Mr. GORDON presented a petition from Aberdeen
against the proposed reduction in the duty on foreign
cattle.
The Marquis of GRANBY presented a petition to the
same effect.
Mr. GREGORY presented a petition from Galway,
praying for a system of scriptural education in Ireland.
Mr.PLUMPTIIE presented a petition from the Fruit-
growers' Association of EaEtKent, against any reduction
in the duty on foreign fruit.
Lord F. EGERTON presented a petition from West
Derby, near Liverpool, praying, that further powers
might be given by law to the overseers of parishes rela-
tive to the reputed fathers of illegitimate children. Also,
a petition from 4,000 persons of Bury in favour of the
commercial policy of her Majesty's Government.
Mr. ATT\VOOD presented a petition, praying for an
equalisation of the duty on timber between this country
and the Isle of Man (as we understood).
Mr. MITCRELL presented a petition, praying for an
alteration in regulating seamen's wages.
Mr. HUTT presented a petition from Hull against
the proposals of her Majesty's Government with respect
to the tariff.

HAWKERS' LICENSES.
Sir G. STRICKLAND presented a petition from
certain inhabitants of Durham, being hawkers, com-
plaining of the tax upon their licenses, and of the regu-
lationS connected therewith, whereby they were much
harassed and oppressed. The Honourable Baronet pre-
sented also six petitions for the repeal of the Corn-laws.
The designation of the petitioners was not heard
,in the
gallery.
CUSTOMS' DI,TTIESt
Mr. T. DUNCOMBE presented two petitions from
bodies of journeymen curriers, against the reduction of
the tax upon foreign curried leather, ,and the tax
upon the importation of boots and shoes. He
also presented a petition from the straw-plait
manufacturers of the county of Suffolk against the
reduction of the duty on foreign plaited straw.
—(Cries of " Hear, hear," and great laughter on the
Tory benches.)
THE RIGHT OF PETITION.
Mr. T. DUNCOMBE then said he had another peti-
tion to present from the members of trades and pro-
fessions in the metropolis ; the name, profession, and
residence of each person was appended to his signature,
and the number of signatures, altogether was 380.—
(Hear, hear.) The petitioners stated their reasons why
this House ought not to agree to a Bill imposing a tax
on income, which was, under all circumstance!, neces-
sarily unequal, oppressive, and unconstitutional.—
(Hear, hear.) But they further stated their reasons why,
if the House consented at all to such an imposition,
it ought not to be fixed for three years, as its continu-
ance for so long► a time would secure its re-enactment for
a longer period; and they prayed that the House would
not pass the Bill under its consideration. He said, " Sir,
I will now move that this petition be brought up"—
(Hear)—and he was proceeding towards the bar when
The SPEAKER called out " Order, order," and said

that the Hon. Member was aware that it was the usage
and rule of the House not to receive petitions against a
tax or duty, which was under the consideration of that
House ; and, yesterday, on a motion brought forward
by the Hon. Member himself, the House had decided
that the rule should not be discontinued.
Mr. T. DUNCOMBE—Sir, with every respect for
the order which which you have just laid down, I think
it is in the power of this House to accept or reject any
petition, as it may think proper.—(Cheers.) There
is no rule or order which can prevent the House
from receiving the petitions of the people
at any time.—(Cheers.) But I admit that the resolution
which I yesterday proposed, and which was, " 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," was, by, a very narrow
majority, at the instance of her Majesty's Government,
certainly rejected.—(Hear, hear, hear, from the Tories,
responded to by cheers from the Opposition.) But there
is no rule or standing-order which makes it imperative
on the House to reject any petitions.—(Hear, hear.) If
there were any such rule or order, I would be the last to
fly in the face of it. But as it is only a practice,
an obsolete, absurd, and cobweb practice—(Cheers and
laughter)—which has been departed from in various in-
stances i and as it has been clearly proved that the

House has the power of receiving or rejecting all kinds
of petitions as it deems proper, I shall on this oieca-
Sion take the sense of the House.—(Cheers.)
I admit it has been the usage since 1693—1 admit thest
it was a practice adhered to in the time of Sir Robert-
Walpole, and followed up from that time to the passing
of the Reform Bill.—(Hear, hear.) But from the
time of Walpole to the Reform Bill this House became
every year more and more corrupt and more pliable to
the will of the Ministry than it ever had been.—(Hear,
hear.) However, in 1815, Sir William Curtis was
allowed to present a petition from the City of -
London against the property tax, pending the
consideration of that tax, though the House divided!
as to whether it should be received or not—(Hear, hear)
—and again in 1816, another petition was presented by
Sir W. Curtis against the same tax, and the City of
London presented a similar petition by the Sheriffs
at the Bar—(Hear, hear)—and it was received—(Loud
cheers)—and I think for one, that the old usage
was more honoured in the breach than in the observance-
-(Hear, hear.) I must therefore, Sir, with all respect;
to your authority as to what are or are not the laws
and usages of the House, take the sense of the House •
upon this petition, as I am resolved to stand by the right
of the people to petition.
The SPEAKER—Of course it is for the House to de-
cide whether it will receive or reject any petition—
(Cheers)—it is only for me to say what are the usages
of the House.—(Hear.)
Mr. ROBERT PALMER (who spoke from the Trea-
sury Benches) did not see any reason why that petition
should not be received.—(Hear, hear.) If he had been
in the House yesterday, when the Hon. Member for
Finsbury brought forward his motion, he (Mr. P.)
should, most certainly, have voted in the mino-
rity with him.—(Hear, from the Opposition.) But, in
point of fact, the lion. Member had done quite as much
to answer the ends of the petition, as if it had been
formally laid upon the table.—(Hear, hear.) The Hon_
Member had stated the prayer of the petition and the
number of the petitioners—(Hear, hear)—and be (Mr,
P.) could not see what inconvenience there would be in
practice from allowing the petition to be received and
laid on the table.
Mr. KEMBLE was not present yesterday w hen the
motion of the Hon. Member for Finsbury was under dis-
cussion, and he could not say whether, if he were, he
should net have supported it. He could not say posi-
tively whether or not.—(Laughter.) But when it was
known that no public business was brought on
until five o'clock—(" Hear, hear," from the Tories)
—and he thought no gentleman—(lnterruption and cries
of " Hear, hear," from the Tories)—he repeated, that
when this was known, and when this question was dis-
cussed last night, and the House decided that the rule
should not be departed from, he thought it a most unfair
proceeding to come doe n with the other side in such
-etrongs fe;ete as they bad on this occasion.—(Great
cheering and laughter from the Opposition benches.)
It was impossible to see the array on the other side
without coming to the conclusion, that an effort had
been made for the purpose.—(Hear, hear.) It was not;
fair after the discussion of last night to try and get rid by
a side wind of the resolution which had been come to, and
when the Speaker had declared it was contrary to the
usage of the House. Under these circumstances he should
move that the debate upon the subject be adjourned till
Monday.—(Hear, hear.)
The amendment having been put,
Sir H. lIARDINGE said he must declare, after the
decision which had been come to yesterday evening,
that it was an unparliamentary proceeding to come down
to the House that evening, and before the usual hour at
which public business commenced, to attempt to set aside •
that decision.—(Hear, hear.) He hoped. therefore, that.
the Hon. Member would not persist in his motion, but
would adjourn his proposition till Monday:
Mr. O'CONNELL hoped his Hon. Friend would not
consent to postpone his motion, and as to saying that
the proposition came by a side wind it was no such
thing. It came directly, and that was what they
wanted. It was far from being unparliamentary to
present petitions; it was the foundation of their Parlia-
mentary jurisdiction to receive and entertain the petitions
of the people.—(Hear, hear.) They never would have
a Parliament but for the coin which the English people
took out of their purse,; and money was the foundation
of the institution of Parliament, and it was ridi-
culous to say . that the people of England
need not give a shilling of their money, and,
at the same time, preclude them from telling
their representatives whether they would consent
to it.—(Hear, hear.) He confessed he had come down
for the occasion.. He had the misfortune of being shut
out from the division of last night, and he had determined
on being present this evening, and, without meaning any
disrespect, he would persevere on the subject till he had
succeeded. He felt embarrassed lest the Speaker should de-
cide otherwise than he had, and in that case he (Mr. O'C.)
would consent to his decision ; but as he (the Speaker)
left the House to decide, he trusted an end would be put
to the question. Taxes was a subject which, of all others,
most affected the interests of traders and professional
people : and ought not they on such a subject to be heard.
by their representatives ?—(Hear, hear.) He hoped it
would not be considered a party question, and that they
would only consider what was their duty to their con-
stituents ; and, for his own part, he would, under any ,
circumstances, have supported the view he was now ad-
vocating.—(Hear, hear.)
Mr. KEMBLE wished to explain. He had said no.
thing with regard to the question, but he complained
that, after the decision they had come to last night, the
question should be sought to be carried by a side wind.
—(Hear, hear.)
Colonel SIBTHORP said that lie had last night voted
for the Hon Member for Finsbury, but after that mo-
tion had been lost by such a majority last night—(lroni-
cal cheers from the Opposition)—he did not think
it altogether fair to seek to upset that deci-
sion in the manner he (Mr. D.)' now sought to do it.
It was not Consistent with the open and manly course
which that Hon. Member always took, and he should
therefore vote against his proposition to-night.
Mr. LAMBTON said that he had supported the mo-
tion of the Hon. Member for Finsbury last night, but
after the decision which had been then come to as to
what the practice of the house was, lie did protest
against this proceeding, as being rather an unfair way
—(Ministerial cheers)—of obtaining by a side wind a.
reversal of that decision.—(Hear, hear.) Let the HON.
Member bring forward his motion on a future day, and
he (Mr. L.) would support him on a question which
involved the security of the people, and their right to.
petition that House, but he would not lend himself to.
upset the rules and regulations of the House by a side
wind.
Mr. PALMER supported the amendment for the ad-
hsurnment of the debate on the petition.
Sir R. INGLIS said the Hon. Member for Finsbury
might have carried his motion by an assault, but at pre-
sent every moment that the debate was prolonged, his
chances of success were vanishing. He must allow
that the debate had not been prolonged by this;
side of the HouSe, if the Honourable and
Learned Member for Dublin had abstained even
from his two minute speech, he inigist have secured
the success of the Hon. Member's motion. But 'he (Sir
R. Inglis) contended on principle that the decision of
the House on one day, ought net to be set aside wcthoetee
notice ; the Hon. Member ought to have given notiee
of
his intention to present such a petition, then the whittle:
question might have been re-argued, and no one worelde
have any right to complain of the course taken.
But having ascertained what the decision of the House
was on the point, he ought not to have raised the ques-
tion, when nine out of every ten Members only expecte/31;
the ordinary presentation of petitions. He shouo there-
fore vote for the adjournment, trusting that by this' time,
by the assistance of the Hon. Member for Durham, the
object of the Hon. Member for Finsbury was effectm ‘Us
frustrated.
Captain PECHELL said the Hon. Member for thee
University of Oxford spoke as if his Hon. Friend had had
the petition in his pocket for a fortnight. If he hid only
received it that morning, how could he
give such notice?
He hoped he would persist in dividing the Pouse
might happen that he should follow the same course with
the petition he held in his hand. The Hon. and
Gallant Member for Lincoln had endeavoured to lead
the House astray by putting the motion as a wan t
courtesy to the Speaker. He was perfectly satisfied t 1.124,
this was not the case.
The SOLICITOR-GENERAL hoped the Honourable--
Member would not press the motion. They were not to
discuss whether the practice were a wise one or not,
hilt it certainly had been the practice for a number of years
not to receive petitions presented under such circumstances.
Last night the lion. Member for Finsbury, after having
given notice of his intention upon the subject, moved.
that the practice of the House relative to the reception
of petitions should be discontinued. He admitted th at it.
was perfectly open to the Honourable Member to pus '51:101!
such a course, and to call in question the former'
usage of the House. But after the House had de-
cided upon that motion it was not fair of the lion_
Member to bring forward on a succeeding evening the same
question without having given any previous notice of his
intention ; sash a course, if acceded to by the House,
would lead to very inconvenient consequences, inasmuch
as all the proceedings of that House were regulated by
precedents, end by former practices. It was manifestly
inadvisable that the decision of the House upon a right.
should be reversed the succeeding night, while the Houses
was not prepared for discussion upon the subject.,
Irhe
hoped, therefore, that the Hon. Member for insburss
vipould not now persevere in his motion.
Lord JOHN RUSSELL said that he was one of
those Members who were not aware that his lion. Friend
meant to propose that the petition should be brought up
that evening. He agreed with his Hon. and Learned
Friend in thinking that it would be very inconvenient—
without taking into consideration this particular
practice—that it would be very inconvenient,
with regard to the general usage and forme;
of the House, that a motion that had been rejected
after due notice, should be again brought forward when
many Members of the House were not aware that the
subject was to be again considered.—(Hear, hear.) He
thought it was not only quite competent, but that :it
would be quite reasonable on the part of Isis lion.
Friend to bring the question again before the
House. It appeared to him, that the fact of a
practice having prevailed for one hundred and fifty years
was a sufficient ground for the House to reject a motion
for its reversal on its being first proposed. But the
House might no doubt agaie consider the reasons upon
which that practice stood, and repeal it if they should
think it advisable to do so. He understood that the
lion. Member for Surrey had moved that the debate
should be adjourned until Monday, and he hoped his
Hon. Friend would accede to that proposal.—(Hear,
hear.) He believed that it would he in the power of his
Hon. Friend to bring on the question at an early hour
on Monday, and the House would then have an oppor-
tunity of reconsidering the matter.
Mr. AGLIONBY said he concurred in the recommen-
dation of the Hon. and Learned Solicitor-General, though
not upon the same ground ; he concurred in it not from
any regard for the practice of the House, but bet:auk be