The Express.
London, England, 1849-02-24 00:00:00

, 1849.

Mly ihecospatibbr itith,tbi‘ Milky: whith con-
latfirdelle oilliolkkle die ' •
the mass Of 101 tier m 00.041 qt4i-
-111 their moist, th." pod elms of le
country would not bear them.statZ
is a monarch, a Freoak monarch, for exam ,
to do ? Appeal from UM people to the
elms, like-, Louis FHIUPPE, and fall. 0;
LS
from the' iestesimin chow to the people, like Lows
NAPOLEON, and condescend- to exercise dictatorial
power under the forms of a constitution. Neither of
these thinp goodie &wades. A republic is neither
more nor less than the impossibility of a monarchy.
At this conclusion, we think, that France has arrived.
But we have not the least objection to find the troth of
our opinion disproved.

THE fierce opposition which the government pro-
positions for the levying of Irish poor-rates have
called forth in the north of Ireland, is not greater
than we had anticipated. We regret, indeed, that
this hostility should be so generelly directed
against the principle of a rate in aid ; for to
that all rational men in this coriatry have
mule up their minds ; and any further dis-
cussion as to its policy, and, in the present
condition of Ireland, imperative necessity, would be
utterly futile. If our friends on the other side of the
water wish to have any other propositions which they
have to make calmly and deliberately considered,
they would do well to set out with the admission that
a rate in aid there must be.
This principle once accepted as a postulate, and
submitted to with a good grace, we are not pre-
pared to say that the people of Ulster are not
justified in looking with suspicion on the government
propositions so far as regards the justice and the effi-
cacy of the conditions under which it is proposed
that a rate in aid shall be levied. They may natu-
rally inquire, in the first place, whether the maximum
rate fixed on for each electoral division and union be
sufficient ; and secondly, supposing it to be so, what
guarantees there are that this rate will be bona fide
collected before a rate in aid is called for. The
plan of government is obviously imperfect, in not
providing acme distinct and certain means of testing I
the resources of each electoral division, before recourse
is had to the union rate. There is but one rational
method of doing this, and that is by the sale of de-
faulting land. As the measure stands at present,
there is absolutely no valid security that a rate of
2s. and 31. will not be, in many instances
the maximum " found possible to collect."
And, should this be the case Ulster and
Leinster may most rationally cry out against the folly
and injustice which burdens them with the surplus
expenses of districts so shamefully maladministered.
The question as to the fittest amount at which to fix
the maximum for each electoral division, and after-
wards for each union, obviously depends very mach
on the stringency with which it is probable that the
maximum fixed upon will be realised.
Supposing, however, that government gives an
undertaking to follow up its present propositions by
neastues calculated to make the land as well as its
produce responsible for the poor-rate, it would still be
a question whether the maximum of ss. for a division
rate and 2s. for a union rate is sufficiently high, as
well u whether (supposing it high enough) there
might not be a different limit assigned for @w-
eenies years. For instance, it might be provided
that if a rate of 7s. for division and union jointly,
give a title, to a rate in aid the first year, tile
district and union so relieved shall be required to
provide from their own resources, say to the extent
of 7s. 6d. for an electoral division rate, and 2s. 6d. for
a union rate, or 10s. in all, before they came upon the
the rate in aid a second year. Without some check
of this description the prospect of a rate in aid would
be offering a fearful temptation to the guardians of
demoralised unions to neglect in the collection, and
improvidence in the expenditure of their rates.
The more these and similar difficulties are consi-
dered, the more necessary does it seem to re-consider
the details of the measure. The 4th and .sth resolu-
tion, concerning the five-shilling district and the two-
shilling union rate, were, we believe, withdrawn yes-
terday, the committee declining to vete them without
evidence. The first witness, Mr. Powell, will be
examined next week. It is impossible not to
sympathise with the scruples of the committee.
On a question, in the right solution of which
the welfare of a whole country, and the very exist-
ence of a portion of its population are involved, it will
not do to legislate in the dark ; and the legislature
and the country generally would have a right to com-
plain if the committee allowed either the urgency of
the use or the merits of the government plan gene-
rally to prevent them from instituting a rigid scrutiny
into its details. We trust the end of it will
be that government will be compelled to admit
the necessity of making property in land
liable for poor rate, as well as the pro-
duce and stock found upon it. Let the govern.
ment and the landlords do what they will, to this it
must come at last. From many districts produce and
stock are vanishing fast; and the only way to
bring them back will be to give the poor law authori-
ties a power of selling all lands on which a certain
amount of rates shall have been due for a certain period
of time. Such confiscation would have been
most creel andanjust so long as the rate remained un-
limited. But once a moderate limit is fixed upon,
and the resources of the rest of the kingdom called in
aid, we do not see what valid objection can be made
to it. In fact without some such provision for enforcing
the collection of the local rates, the imposition of a
rate in aid will be open to the imputation of being
improvidentil well as unjust

SURELY the very extraordinary objection raised by
Mr. Hewes to the production of • paper, relative to
the negotiations between the Hudson's Bay Company
and the Colonial-office about Vancouver's Island, will
not be allowed to pass without further comment in
parliament.
Mr. Hume moved to have the opinion of the QUEEN%
Attorney and Solicitor-General respecting the com-
petently of the Hudson's Bay Company to
restive a grant of land from the crown laid upon the
table of the house. Mr. Hewes stated that the
Ch/onial-offioe would not produce the document if it
MUD in their possession : and that moreover the
Irin question was the private property of the
on's Bay Company, and that he doubted whe-
ther it were in the power of parliament to compel its
production.
The first thing in this reply that strikes every un-
prejudiced mind as offensive and objectionable is the
part played by the Colonial-office in accepting and
acting upon such an opinion. By calling for it the
Colonial-office showed that they entertained grave
doubts of the legality of a grant of lands to the com-
pany. This being the case, the Colonial-office ought
to have consulted the law officers of the crown as
public servants. Instead of doing this they allow
the company to produce an opinion which
they have obtained from the crown conned upon
payment of a fee, and on the strength of a private
confidential az porte statement. In acting upon an
opinion thus procured, without attempting to obtain
an unblessed opinion for the crown, without allowing
the other parties competing for the grant to kuow its
nature and offer objections to it, the Colonial-office
have seriously compromised themselves and viola,ed
their public trust.
The next objectionable feature in this extraordi-
nary transaction is the conduct of the law officers of
the crown. These officials are permanently retained
and well paid to act for the interests of the crown. Is
it to be tolerated that they shall receive fees and give
opinions upon an ex parts statement to private parties
who have an interest separate from, and, it may be,
adverse to that of the crown ?
Ludy, it will be remembered that the crown holds
the waste lands of the colonies anddependencies only
in trust for the nation. The responsible advisers of
the crown have counselled it to convey a large extent
of these lands to a company whose legal competency
to receive such a grant has been doubted by the
Colonial-office, and is still doubted by many of
our most learned lawyers and experienced. statesmen.
And when called upon to produce the document
which contains the opinion that has dispelled
their own doubts as to the legality of the transaction,
they deny the power of parliament to compel its pro-
duction. Are ministers entitled to act in such a mat-
ter upon an opinion which they cannot produce in
their own vindication P
The matter cannot rest here. The public interest,
the legality of the conduct of the Colonial-office and
the crows counsel are all mixed up in this question.
And the trainman which an attempt is made to
conceal from public =poem by the extraordinary de-
claration of Mr. HAW/11, Is 1114 W ware nor less than

an attempt to perpetuate and extend the powers of the
only survivor of those unjustifiable monopolies which
were a main source of the fatal dimensions between
Meat ea I. and his parliament.

BELGIUM.