The Sun.
London, England, 1839-07-27 00:00:00

The House then resumed, and Mr Robt. Stewart and ethe
train the Commons brought up the Slave Trade (Portugal) Bal.—
( (Hear, hear.)
Their Lordships again went into Committee.
The tat clause was agreed to, and on the 2d clause being pro-
: Posed,

Lord BROUGHAM said this clause proposed to give a power
of new taxation which had never been agreed to by any representa-
tives of the people. He thought the better way would be to post-
pone the second clause till the third was disposed of.
Agreed to.
Lord BROUGHAM then moved the rejection of the third clause,
which he thought gave most unconstitutional power.
The Earl of WICKLOW supported the motion.
After a few words from Lord ELLENBOROUGH and the
Marquis of NORMANBY,
Earl FITZWILLIAM said it would be necessary to put in
words to show by whom the taxes were to be levied and by whom
they were to be made payable.
After a few words from the Earl of RIPON end the Loan CHAN-
eII,II.IIIR, •
Lord BROUGHAM said that nothing that had been said made
this clause more comprehensible than it was before. Wh it sort of
Person that could be who was tot eceive the tax thus imposes!, and
Yet who was not a public officer of the revenue of the province, he
could not by any possibility devise. Every one employed in collect-
ing a tax or a duty was a revenue officer; a landing waiter at Sheer-
ness was as much an officer of revenue as the Chancellor of the
Exchequer, the principal tax.gatherer himself. He believed that
those who bad framed the Bill before they set to work with their
hands had never worked at all with their heads on the subject, anti
therefore it was impossible that any person could discover what
they Wanted, because they did not know it themselves. Their
Lordships aught not to pass nonsense, even although urged to do so
by the Government. It would be disrespectful to the Crown to ask
its assent to nonsense. He objected to it altogether, for if it meant
anything it meant to delegate to the Crown, by means of the Go.
vernor, the power of taxing Canada, without the check or consent
of the Lords or Commons.
The Marquis of NORMANBY said the clause was intended to
de The
to the Governor and Council the power of levying rates
lOC local
purposes, such as for the support of the police at Montreal
Or at Quebec : he was not learned enough in law to know whether
it could, legally speaking, carry out that intention, but that was its
Object.

Lord ELLENBOROUH would suggest to the Noble Marquis
that he should consent to the clause being struck out now, and pre-
pare a clause to effect his object, which could be introduced in bring-
ing 'JP the Report.
,s.uViacount MELBOURNE thought if the House approved of the
✓nciple it would be better to pass the clause, which could be
amended in bringing up the Report.
Lord BROUGHAM said his Noble Friend was asking their
Lordships to pass nonsense now, which he would make into sense if
he could on the bringing up of the Report. Suppose a tax imposed
under this clause, and one of the inhabitantscalled on to pay it, he
would not be disposed t o do so, and he would say to the person de-
tflancling it, you are a revenue officer. Persons were always astute
enough in finding excuses to avoid paying taxes. It would be use-
'eall for the collector to say he was merely a local collector collecting
local tax. The very fact of his being appointed to collect under
the ordinance would make him, pro /sac vice, a public revenue officer.
Viscount MELBOURNE—The clause was intended to apply to
i.evenueofficers already acting as snch, and not to those called into ex.
isteLice
by virtue of this Act.
Lord ELLENBOROUGH was not disposed to refuse the Gover.
her
and Council power to raise local taxes for local purposes, but
thought this went further, and would lead to jobbing by public
Co
naPaniec
The Earl of DURHAM said the object was to prevent local
dues. being collected by revenue officers, and there was a ma-
e.mnery for carrying this clause into effect existing in most towns.
'lt the town of Montreal there was a corporation, the officers
or Which collected local dues. This was not the case in Quebec.
,B°ine of the complaints made to him was of the non-existence of a
`4l-Poration. In certain parishes there was an officer called a eager,
Whose duty it was to collect these dues ; so that a machine already
existed for carrying it into effect.
ford BROUGHAM said his Noble Friend had stated the
existence of local officers who could carry this claim into effect;
but still that would not get rid of the difficulty except in the case
When a public work was confined to one parish, as, if a road were
"ntinued throngh various parishes, the rates must eventually be
Paid into the hands of some one person, and the persons collecting
them would still be publie revenue officers.
The Duke of WELLINGTON understood the intention of the
clause was to give the Governor in Council a power similar to that
exercised by Parliament in the passing of private Bills.
The LORD CHANCELLOR stated that was exactly the inten-
tion of the clause, and that public officers engaged in the collection
of the revenue of the state should not be employed to collect these
rates.

Earl FITZWILLIAM suggested that the difficulty would be
met by introducing words, enacting that the officers to be employed
in collecting those rates should be mentioned in the ordinance im.
Posing them.
The Earl of RIPON objected to giving Companies the power of
taxing persons to carry ou public works, the profit of which went
into their own pockets.
Lord LYNDHURST said the clause was wholly useless—they
roust legislate upon the subject next Session, for the law under
which Canada was governed expired next November, and no law
or ordinance was to be of effect until it had been on the table of
the House for thirty days. They did not meet till February ; that
brought it to March,and seven or eight weeks must elapse before
it got out to Canada.
Lord BROUGHAM moved that the House be resumed in order
that the Government might have time to make themselves ac-
quainted with the contents of their own Bill.
The Duke of WELLINGTON said that some such clause was
necessary, though is there was any doubt as to its wording, it had
better be postponed, and made clear.
Lord BROUGHAM withdrew his former amendment, and
moved that the clause be postponed.
The Honse then divided—
. For the Clause
56
Against it
Majority.—
7
On the next Clause, giving the Governor power to alter the land
tenure,
Lord Brougham, Earl Fitzwilliam, Lord Lyndhurst, and Lord
Ellenborougl objected to vesting so important a pawer in a tem-
porary authority, and an amendment proposed by Lord Ellenbo..
rough, negativing it, was agreed to.
The remaining clauses were agreed to, and the report was ordered
to be. brought up on Monday.
Their Lordships adjourned at Half:past Twelve o'Clock.

HO USE OF COMMONS, Juir 26.
The SPEAKER took the Chair at the usual hour.
On the motion of Mr. WALKER the Bury Small
Debts Bill was read a third time and passed.
BELFAST WATERWORKS BILL.
Mr. G. W. WOOD brought up the Report of the
Committee on this Bill.

Mr. O'CONNELL moved that the Bill be recom-
mitted. The proceedings of the Committee had been
quite anomalous, for they had decided that the preamble
was proved, and bad rejected the first clause of the Bill.
. .

Mr. T. DUNCOMi3E seconded the motion.
Mr. G. W. WOOD said he would state to the House
the proceedings which had taken place before the Com-
mittee, and if the House thought it necessary, be would
then give his reasons for the course he had taken. The
Committee consisted of 14 members, and had been sitting
for nine days. During that time it had examined 11 wit-
nesses in favour of the Bill, and 4 against it. Of the
14 Members, there were two who did not attend any pro-
ceeding subsequent to the choice of chairman. Three
others did attend until private business required them
to leave town. The remaining nine attended the whole
of the proceedings, and the decisions had been quite
unanimous:

Mr. E.TENNENT said the Bill had been fairly and
fully examined before the Committee, and the weight of
evidence proved this to be a contest between a few specu-
lators and 65,000 of the inhabitants of Belfast.—(Hear.)
The preamble was but a collection of truisims, so that the
Committee could not possibly reject it ; but on the first
clause the question naturally occurred as to the means by
which the project of the Bill was to be carried into exe-
cution ; and it turned out to be a disgraceful bubble, and
the Committee had considered that the parties promoting
it should not be trusted for an hour, therefore the incor-
poration scheme was rejected. The parties had inflicted
the most harrassing proceedings or the town of Belfast,
avowedly to extort money. Every year there was sonic
fresh scheme for interfering with the institutions of the
town—the projectors having to be bought off. Twenty-
eight meetings had been held in the town against the
Present scheme, and a charitable society connected
with the waterworks had lost 5,0001. Eventually
the projectors bad been offered, to induce them to abandon
the scheme, and let the town alone, 1,5001. ; besides 2001.
a year annuity. He trusted that the House would now
put an end to these proceedings, so loathsome and disgust-
ing as they were.
Mr. O'CONNELL said the Hon. Member for Belfast
was on the Committee ; and the tone he had on the pre-
sent occasion adopted sufficiently manifested that the Hon.
Member had not been a very impartial judge. There had
been nothing in his (Mr. O'Cunnell's) speech to justify
the violent language which the Hon. Member had em-
ployed.

Sir. E. TENNENT said he bad not referred to the
Hon Member ; he bad spoken of the scheme and its
projectors.

- Mr. O'CONNELL perfectly understood the Hon.
Member. He wished to bring before the House the
preamble which the parties had been prepared to
prove :—" That Belfast, of late years, had greatly
increased in population—that the town was not at
present sufficiently supplied with water—and that it
was expedient that an additional supply should be se-
cured." Was not that a strong case in favour of the
Bill? The preamble further stated that the Marquis of
Donegal and his son, the Earl of Belfast, had, with other
persons, been willing, and applied to be incorporated for
the purpose. This was the scheme which the Hon. Member
for Belfast termed a " bubble." Now he (Mr. O'Connell)
kneMvvr.oGot.hingwhi_ch less
deserved that title.
WOOD wished it to be understood that he did
not concur in the description which the Hon. Member for
Belfast had given of the scheme.
Mr. LOCK.H ART said he had attended the Com-
mittee, and with attention had investigated the subject ;
and he could affirm that there was not one tittle of evidence
to show that the parties applying for the incorporation
could supply the water required
tion list, or that, in short, there weihat here, in fact,ewasasah
any
pecuniaryscrip-
provisions for carrying on the plan. He trusted the House
would not recommit the all.
Mr. P. THOMSON hoped the House would not con-
sent to recommit the Bill on such slight grounds.—( Hear,
hear.) The House, in his opinion, ought not, except upon
the most serious grounds, to send a Bill back to a Committee.
In the present case he had heard nothing to show any pro-
bability that if the Bill were referred back, a different con_
elusion would be arrived at ; and the period of the Session
was an additional argument against the proposition.
The motion was negatived without a division, and the
Report was agreed to.
Mr. PRESUME LD brought up the Report on Tem_
plar's Estate Bill, which was read a third time and passed.
The Honourable Member also brought up the Reports on
Boulton's and Bligh's Estates Bills, which were severally
read a third time, and passed. -
Mr. LAW presented a petition from Hereford against
the Ecclesiastical Duties and Revenues Bill.
Mr. DENISON presented a petition from Chertsey
in favour of a reduced rate of postage.
Mr T
DUNCOMBE presented petitions from 900
w
ratepayers of the Metropolis, from 42 towliships in the
est Riding of
Unions, Yorkshire, from the Berwick and Carlton
s, and from Tadcaster and Desborough, complaining
of the operation of the Poor-law Amet-dment Act.
Ntla
par
ri,.
of SANFORD presented petitions from different
Somerset against the Beer Bill.
UCATION—CATHOLIC PETITION.
LAN-GDA LE said he. had a petition to present
GT
are ery Considerable importance,
and although he was
making
inv thaatnbyy
the rule of the House'
he was prevented from
comment on petitions, he trusted that he