The Sun.
London, England, 1853-05-24 00:00:00

NEW ZEALAND COMPANY.

Mr. BAILLIE wished to ask the noble lord the mem-
ber for the city of London if it was the intention of the
Government to introduce a bill to deprive the New
Zealand Company of certain moneys which the British
Parliament had been induced to vote to them upon false
representations,___

Lord J. RUSSELL replied in the negative.
Mr. MANGLES and Mr. AGLIONBY repelled the impu-
tation of fraud, and declared that if an opportunity were
afforded for discussion, they should be prepared to prove
that the New Zealand Company were justly entitled to
the money.

MANNING THE NAVY.
Sir G. TYLER asked the First Lord of the Admiralty
whether he would place upon the table of the house the
evidence upon which the report of naval officers on man-
ning the navy was founded ?
Sir J. GRAHAM said, it was true certain naval officers
were appointed by the Board of Admiralty to make certain
inquiries, but those officers had no power to compel the
attendance of witnesses. The evidence was given in pri-
vate, and the parties were not subject to cross-examina-
tion. Under these circumstances, it was not the intention
of her Majesty's Government (as we understood) to act
upon the report.
FISCAL RELATIONS OF GREAT BRITAIN AND
IRELAND.

Colonel DUNNE said, before the house went into com-
mittee on-the income tax, ho felt it his duty to call the at-
tention etthe house to the necessity of instituting a pre-
liminary inquiry as to the fiscal and political Mations of
Great Britain and Ireland, with a view to ascertain whether
Ireland did not at the present moment bear her fair share
of imperial taxation. There were various reasons why the
house should grant the inquiry. First, there was very
little knowledge among members of the house and in this
country of the actual condition of Ireland, and he re-
gretted to say that it would be found that she had not
prospered to the same same extent as England since the
union. Secondly, no previous Chancellor of the Exche-
quer had even attempted to extend to Ireland such an
enormous addil ional weight of taxatioi. Thirdly, the pro-
position was a direct breach of the articles of union be-
tween the two countries. lie did not ask the house not
to extend her fair share of taxation to Ireland, but he
asked them to extend it only in the legal and proper way,
and not to proceed in a manner quite contrary to the
Act of Union because they had a majority of the house
with them. (Hear, hear.) By the act, or, as it was termed
in the statute itself, " the treaty between the two coun-
tries," it was settled that its provisions should be per-
petual, and they bound the house now as much as when
the act was passed. The first article, relating to the fiscal
arrangements of the two countries, declared that the pro-
portion of taxation to be borne by Ireland should be
2-17ths of that of England, and a subsequent clause set
forth several modes in which the revenue of the country
might be assessed—such as the relative value of exports
and imports, and the consumption of spirits, malt, sugar,
and such exciseable articles, &c. It was well known the
treaty was extremely injurious to Ireland, and the burdens
since laid on Ireland were much heavier than she could or
ought to bear. The requirements of England and the wars
in which she engaged, raised the taxation of Ireland year
after year to an enormous amount. Nor had the expectations
been realised of an increased colonial trade for the latter
country, which many had indulged in at the time of the
union. The whole debt of Ireland at the time of the union
was 25,000,0001. Iu 1815 it had increased to (as we under-
stood) 125,000,0001. The revision of taxation and revenue
provided for by the Act of Union at the end of every seven
years never took place • and in 1815 a motion was made
for the consolidation of the two Exchequers of Ireland and
England. Many persons imagined that act abrogated the
Treaty of Union, but he denie that it did. It was a mere
fiscal arrangement. He asserted, then, that according to
the Act of Union at any time Ireland chose to call for the
consideration of the taxation of the two countries she had a
right to have her request granted, and that was never more
necessary to be done than at the present moment, when she
was threatened with this new tax. (Hear, hear.) Lord
Fitzgerald showed in 1815 that Ireland had lost enormously
up to that time by the union. If they refused the com-
mittee of inquiry for which he sought, they would abrogate
the articles of the union, and give cause for fresh discon-
tent in Ireland. For years lion, gentlemen opposite had
been speaking against the agitation for the repeal of the
union. That agitation no longer existed. Did they wish
to see an agitation to enforce the observance of the union ?
Let them have equal taxation when Ireland was in the

third time :—London, Brighton, and South Coast Rail- same state as England. She was worse off now than l'n
way ; North and South Western Junction Railway ; past years—much worse off than at the time of the unioli.
Sunderland Dock ; Wildmore Fen and East and West The loss caused by the terrible calamity which had occurred
Fens ; Groat Western Railway (Henley). there in the last few years had been estimated at from
The following bills were read a second time :—Aber- 30,000,0001. to 33,000,0001. By a measure which was said
to have produced great benefits to this country Ireland had
deen Tailors' Incorporation Estate, Fisher's Divorce, lost upwards of 6,000,0001. more in the difference in the
Baroda and Central India Railway Company. price of corn. Whatever advantage might have accrued
PETITIONS. to those who paid the poor rate, he maintained the loss was
still to that extent so far as Ireland was concerned. In
Mr. E. BALL presented a petition from Cambridge- many respects Ireland was infinitely worse off than she
shire—one in favour of legalising marriage with a de- was before the union. She had lost her manufactures,
ceased wife's sister, and the other praying for the repeal and she had suffered much from the absenteeism created
of the malt and hop duties. by the attendance of Irish members of both houses in this
Mr. BROCKLEHURST presented a petition in fa- country. Her surplus revenue was not spent within her
your of legalising marriage with a deceased wife's sister own shores, but, on the contrary, on an average of 2,000,0001.
from the town of Macclesfield, signed by a clergyman, was remitted to the exchequer of this country. The re-
venues of the Woods and Forests amounted to 61,0001. a-
, iissenting ministers, solicitors, surgeons, manufacturers
y ear,.which, with a very small exception, were sent over
tradesmen, and others, to the number of 1,280, 225 of to this country. It appeared by the returns which had
these being married women, been laid before the house, and by other moans of informs-
Mr. G. HUDSON presented a petition from shipown tion, that within the last 35 years no less than 282,000,000/
itrs at Sunderland, in favour of certain amendments in the had been transmitted from Ireland to England, putting
Pilotage Bill. together the surplus revenue, the amount spent by absen-
Mr. T. DUNCOMBE presented petitions from Brad- tees, and the proceeds of the Woods and Forests. Here
ford, Huddersfield, and the metropolis, against the ocs- there were full reasons for granting this committee of in-
quiry. The only answer they could condescend to give
cupation of Rome by the French troops.
Mr. ALEX. HASTIE presented a petition from a was, that they had a majority of the houso against it, but
he had a better opinion of the English people than to
place in Scotland in favour of the inspection of nunneries.
think th©y would rely on such a reply to a fair demand.
Mr. MAGUIRE presented a petition from Dublin He asked nothing snore than justice—nothing but a
against the extension of the income tax to Ireland. fair inquiry before they called on Ireland to bear
Mr. SCHOLEFIELD presented a petition from Bir- increased taxation. It was said that Ireland would
mingham, against the proposed alteration in the stamp receive an equivalent for the income tax in the re-
mission of the consolidated annuities. This was to hint
duty on articles of clerkship,
Mr. Sergeant SHEE presented a petition from Kil- au absurd argument, for what did th nsolidated ennui-
f? They consisted of advances
to Ireland
kenny, against the extension of the income tax to Ire- ties consist o
which were administered by the English Government, and
land, so ill administered that Ireland received no benefit from
Lord J. MANNERS presented a petition from Col-
them. The Irish proprietors appealed to the highest tri-
chester against the opening of the Crystal Palace on buns! in the country, viz., to a committee of the House of
Sundays. Lords, who reported that those annuities were open to se-
FEES ON COMMISSIONS IN THE MILITIA. r
objection.lt was absurd, therefore, to say that the
rieumis
ssion of iat burden was a proper equivalent for the
In reply to Sir DE LACY Everts, income tax. But, besides, he thought that considering
Lord PALMERSTON said that many representations the vast mass of landed property which had changed
hands since those annuities were imposed, and which had
t hb
eel: before reasons
on the subject of the high charges made by the clerks of
the Lieutenantcy, for the issue of commissions in the ITU' been purchased at a reduced price in consequence of their
a select ee -
theeeocetol(liFipsemeaarT
hqeuaire.t)
consider the fiscalra
litia. Officially lie had no power in the matter ;it rested imposition, there would, in his opinion, be great impro-
very much between the Lord-Lieutenants of counties
triirsoinheateyiggtianexanaotteiwonrmebseiesyseetxtrnfdthhesdetmit
ota at
Ireland,
into
expedient,la.annFdd ertohan
sall
eoflaGttoreratkEi ri. I
and their clerks ; but, finding that in some counties,
el ll
at et
ido nths andinquire
efe relative
r.twhteathxeartiothn
especially in Staffordshire and Warwickshire, there
.
lbiteiesaplpori
sre of imperial taxation;'
" king-
was an uniform fee charged of 1/. la. for commis- manidtlepoe
thin and Ireland, and to r
of the little attention which
sions below the rank of captain, and 2/. 2s. for coin-
dom does not bear her fair
missions for officers of a superior rank —he had
had been paid complainedtogtteheneech of the hon, and all
Mr. FRENCH
no e
grace
ants. of the lrinisitenerillial-
written to the Lord Lieutenants of counties, recom-
mending to their consideration whether they could
bet for Portarlin
not make some arrangement with the Clerks of Lieu-
who had tth Y
evenneinotapr-.
tenantey of their respective counties, of establishing bench,
pearancefodiluerwi'nnggiptsreedieliv
yeriny.the course of his honourable
generally that moderate amount of fees.
that they did on the
French)
ADJOURNMENT OF THE HOUSE.
and gallant friend, hadsteol
state,
1 consti-
On the motion of Lord PALMERSTON, it was agreed junto And himself,
not shrink from their fair;
part of his