The Sun.
London, England, 1845-07-18 00:00:00

:4;111t4

LONDON, FRIDAY, JULY 18, 1845.

The Lords met at Five.

The Earl of BESBOROUGU brought up the report of
the Select Committee appointed to inquire into the alle-
gations made against the Dublin and Galway Railway
Company. Tho Committee reported that the Company
had allotted shares without ascertaining the respecta-
bility of the applicants. The Dublin and Galway Rail-
way Bill was subsequently read a second time.

'the Mutual Surrender of Criminals Bill (France and
the United State) was read a third time and passed.
The other Bills on the table were forwarded a stage,
and the House adjourned.

The Commons met at Twelve.
The Earl of LINCOLN moved the third reading of the
Commons Enclosure Bill.

The Bill was opposed by Col. SIBTHORP and Mr.
SHARMAN CRAWFORD, who divided on the motion that
the Bill do pass, but who stood alone in the opposition,
the numbers being for the Bill, 48 ; against it, 0 ; the
two opponents of the Bill being the tellers, awl having
no voters to count.

The Drainage of Lands Bill passed through Corn-
mittee.

The Lunatic Asylums Bill was read a third time and
passed, after the insertion of a clause, made by Mr. H.
BERKELEY, and the withdrawal of the 6th clause.

The Fisheries (Ireland) Bill passed through Com-
mittee.

At the Five o'clock sitting, Sir B. PEEL expressed hi 4
willingness to devote Monday to the discussion of Mr.
C. BULLER'S motion on the subject of New Zealand.
The Death by Accident Compensation Bill was read
a second time.

Mr. AGLIONBY stated that the Bey of Islands, wherk
the recent disasters had occurred in New Zealand, was a
settlement under the supervision of the Church Mis-
sionary Society, and was 400 miles distant from the
settlement of the New Zealand Company.
Sir R. PEEL then moved the second reading of the
Bill for removing the Civil Disabilities of the Jews.
petitions in favour of which had been presented from
various parties in the course of the evening.
The motion was opposed by Mr. PLUMPTRE, and sup-
ported by Lord JOHN RUSSELL and other Hon. Members.

After a short discussion, the Bill was read a second
time and ordered to be committed.

The House then went into Committee upon the Poor-
law Amendment (Scotland) Bill, and the whole of the
clauses were agreed to.
Sir J. GRAHAM then moved the third reading of the
Bills of Exchange Bill, which, after some slight oppo3i-
tion on the part of Mr. WILLIAMS and other Hon.
Members, was read a third time and passed.
The Bail in Error Bill and the Lunatic Asylum Bill
were also read a third time and passed ; and, the other
orders of the day having been disposed of, the House
adjourned.

Upon every fresh occasion on which the affairs of
New Zealand—our settlements there, the proceedings of
the New Zealand Company, the acts of the New Zealand
Goverment—are brought under public notice, we find
new occasion for marvelling at the imbecility or the im-
prudence, the precipitancy or the infatuation, which have
marked the proceedings of all the actors in this " strange,
eventful history." And yet where the legislative and
executive organisation of a new colony was a stupendous
blunder, ab ovo, an original mistake, it is little matter
for wonder, that, with the lapse of time, it should have
become a matured, practical, and dangerous an,,maly.
The latest accounts from New Zealand, in the afflicting
narrative they convey of the destruction of Kororaika
by the natives, and the expulsion of the British residents
from the beautiful shores of the Bay of Islands, after a
sanguinary conflict in which the Aborigines, making all
allowances for their great numerical superiority and
even their better fire-arms, must be allowed to have ex•
hibiled the most undaunted intrepidity and self-posses-
sion ; —these accounts furnish nothing more than the
next catastrophe in the natural sequence of such calami-
ties as the massacre of Wairau. We have not been
backward to declare our opinion of the enormous re-
sponsibility which attaches, for past failures and disasters,
to the ill-digested plans of the New Zealand Company,
and the still more culpable manner of reducing them
into execution, to the follies of Captain FITZROY, and
the inratuation of those connected with him in the
Councils and the Executive Government of the island.
But we have never been enabled to trace the true con-
nexion of cause and effect, in their relation to events
that, in New Zealand, must always confer a melancholy
interest upon the history of the last three years, with
the authority and certainty that we are now enabled to
do, after a careful perusal of the legal opinion re-
turned by Mr. BURGE, (a Queen's Counsel and a
jurist, moreover, of very considerable eminence),
on certain queries that have been submitted
to him as to the eoustructien of the New ZealanJ Go-
vernment Act, the 2d and 3d VICTORIA, C. 62. The im-

r mediate cant e of the late outrage at Kororaika is said
to have been the gradual extinction of trade there—the ;
desertion of the whalers, and the consequent unpopularity
into which the local Government had fallen with the
chiefs. We fear that a cause still more effective and
deplorable has been the isoterious dissatisfaction of our
British colonists there with the strange fr; aks of Lord
STANLEY'S nominee Governor, and the consequent apathy
with which they have regarded previous insults on the
British flag, which, being passed over with impunity by
our authorities, appears to have invited, at the
hands of the savages, their original perpetrators, a re-
moval of them. It may be a very egregious absurdity
for Europeans to permit their indignation at a Gover-
nor's absurdities to make them comparatively indifferent
to the development of the most unequivocal symptcers of
determined and persevering hostility towards them on
the part of the rude and turbulent people on whose
lands they have established themselves; but when Eng-
lishmen imagine that they have been not only miserably
misgoverned, but also illegally taxed, they are quite as
apt to listen as much to the impulses of resentment as to
the dictate.; of discretion or the suggestions of press nt
interest. Now the facts of misgovernment not having
been disputed, even by the thick and thin defenders of
Lord STANLEY'S measures in Parliament, we proceed at
once to the question of the illegal taxation, modified or
imposed, and levied in New Zealand by Governor Fizz-
ROY—molitied by his entire abolition of customs' dues
at certain ports ; imposed and levied in the shape of a
substituted income-tax on British settlers in the colony.
The two questions propounded to Mr. BURGE were
these :—(1.) Whether or not New Zealand is subject to
the provisions of the statute 21 and 3d Vro., c. 62 ? (2.)
Whether or not, by virtue of such statute, or of Acts
relating to the Government of New South Wales and its
dependencies, or otherwise, the Legislative Council of
New Zealand have power to impose taxes and to esta-
blish customs f
The Crown, Mr. BURGE remarks, possessed no
authority in right as of its prerogative, to grant that
form of government now existing in New Zealand, with
this power of taxing the inhabitants of the colony, which
has lately been exercised by it. An established prin-
ciple of constitutional law precludes the Crown from im-
posing on any colony acquired in the way that New
Zealand has been, any form of government invested with
powers inconsistent with the rights enjoined by the sub-
jects of this realm, under the common law of England.
Adverting to the precedents of the Governments esta-
blished in our North American colonies and West India
islands, the Learned Gentleman shows that the Crown
did not attempt to introduce into the latter, of its oe n
prerogative, their constitution of Governors, Legislative
Councils, and Houses of Assembly ; but these were pro-
vided under special Acts of Parliament, authorising the
Crown to make the necessary provisions for carrying
such establishments and enactments into effect. So
neither could the Crown attempt, of its own authority,
to establish, in New Zealand, its present form of govern-
ment, giving it, at the same time, a power of imposing
taxes, without the express sanction to that effect, by
statute, of the Imperial Parliament. It is evident that
the Government in New Zealand has exercised such a
power. The question is, has any such power been con-
ferred on the Government of New Zealand by the 2d
and 3d Vie., c. 62 ? It is clear that that Act does extend
to New Zealand ; though even ties fact, but for an ac-
cident, would still have been ambiguous. Until June,
1339, the Crown had not only not asserted, but had dis
claimed any title of prior discovery, and had actually
treated it as a foreign country.
Our readers will perceive that Mr. BURGE thus con-
firms the complaint we have so often urged, on this
score, against the last as well as the present Govern-
ment. New Zealand seems, from first to last, to have
been with them a colonial nondescript. They were
afraid to handle it. They knew not how to administer
this great legacy of the enterprise of TAsmAre and of
Coon to posterity. This noble island group was nei-
ther bird nor beast—reptile nor fish—to their bewildered
judgments. Now it was caught, how was it to be treated?
More perplexity was never caused to the astonished
council of a zoological society by the; arrival of the first
" ornithorynchus" or duck-billed animal, to determine
whether it should be classed with "ayes" or " mammalia,"
the otter or the duck. Mr. STEPHENS himself, in the
" memorandum" drawn up by him for the Colonial
Minister, had treated of "it as of a foreign country, and
not as part and parcel of the dominions of Great Britain.
But, subsequently, the letters patent of June, 1839, did
establish the sovereignty of the Crown over New Zea-
land, by including it within the commission of the Go-
vernment of New South Wales. Mr. BURGE is, there-
fore, clear on the first point, that New Zealand is subject
to the provisions of the Ist and 2d VicroniA, which au-
thorised the Crown to declare it a separate government
from that of New South Wales, and to appoint a council.
The second question—" What powers the Government,
so created by the Crown, under the authority of 2d and
3d VICTORIA, c. 62, possess or are entitled to exercise"—
derives an extraordinary importance from the
fact that the New Zealand Government
has assumed the power of imposing taxes.
Has the Act given to this local Government, under the
powers which it has conferred upon the Crown of creat-
ing it, any such power as this of taxation ? The Act
authorises the Lieutenant-Governor and six other indi-
viduals to form a Legislative Council for a certain
colony—such individuals to be nominated by her MA-
JESTY, and hold office during her MAJESTY'S pleasure ;
and the terms are " it shall be lawful for such Legisla •
tive Council to make and ordain all such laws and ordi-
nances as may be required for the peace, order, and
good government of such colony." Do these terms in-
clude any power of imposing taxes ? The cases of our
North American and West Indian Legislatures, which
do possess and exercise such a power, are not in point.
These legislative bodies are composed of the Governor,
Council, and a House of Assembly, elected by the free-
holders of the respective districts, counties, or towns for
which:they are returned. Such bodies, therefore, impose
taxes on that principle of our common law which makes
the imposition of the tax the act of the parties who
pay them, or of their representatives. For this
Legislative Council of New Zealand to have been au-
thorised to impose taxes would have been, clearly, to
violate this great constitutional principle. But it is
obvious that the Crown itself, not possessing any such
taxing power, could not delegate it to its own nominees
(and the Legislative Council of New Zealand are no
other than its nominees). The difference between such
a body and the legislative bodies of Canada, of Jamaica,
of Newfoundland, and other of our colonies, is as broad
And marked as possible. Besides—as Mr. BURGH has
well argued—if the Legislature had intended to give any
such power to the Crown in the present instance, it would
have done so in express terms, not by implication merely;
and the rule of law is always to construe, strictly, any
statute empowering the imposition of a tax. Mr. BURGH
finally concludes that neither in terms nor by implica-
tion do the enactments of the Ist and 2d Vic., c. 62, or of
the other Acts of Parliament in reference to New South
Wales and its dependencies, give any such power
to the Government of New Zealand as it has been exer-
cising, of imposing taxes on the QUEEN'S subjects.
If Mr. BURGE'S opinion be a sound one—and we shall
he curious to learn who will venture to impeach it—
how enormous have been the extent and the consequen-
tial mischiefs of the illegal action of Captain FITZROY'S
government ? The colonists have been robbed, first, by
the colonial chiefs, and plundered afterwards by the
chiefs of the native tribes. The common-law rights of
English settlers have been trampled under foot, and
English settlers have lost much of the universal attach-
ment of Englishmen all over the world to their form of go-
vernment, and to institutions derived from their mother
country. What wonder? We are curious to see in
what shape the question will be addressed to Lord
STANLEY how he came, as head of the Colonial Depart.
ment, to slumber over the unconstitutional and despotic
proceedings of his especially-recommended and accre-
dited selection of a Colonial Governor !

The Bill honoured by the title of the Jewish Dis-
Abilities Removal Bill, which actually proceeds to the
alarming and incredible extent of enabling Jews to be
mayors and aldermen in corporate towns, might not
unjustly be styled -a " Bill introduced by a Conservative
Government in 1845 to remove certain disabilities im-
posed on the Jews by the Conservative party in 1829,
and deliberately and designedly continued by the same
Conservative party in 1841." The disabilities of the
Jews in corporations arise out of the words " on the
faith of a Christian," in the oath prescribed by the Act
which repealed the Test and Corporation Acts, which
words were introduced in to the oath in the House of Lords
on the motion of the present Bishop of LLANDAFF, not-
withstanding the remonstrance of Whig noblemen, and
especially of the late Lord HOLLAND, who eloquently
pointed out and reprobated the effect of these words on
the Jewish members of our community. The Bishop of
LLANDAFF wasunsilen t in the House of Lords on the pend-
insgsolhuitsionowonf
thhaendwizgrkG.
ovelrnmulBe4nlt:
beforesinhgortßlyiliforundoing
the d
Mr. DIVETT, the Member for Exeter, introduced a Bill
exactly similar to the present Government measure ; it
passed the House of Commons, Mr. GotrixußN and Mr.
GLADSTONE vehemently opposing it, and was stranded in
the House of Lords. A similar Bill has now been proposed
by a Government of which Mr. GOULBURN is a leadirg
member, and Mr. GLADSTONE a principal auxiliary, has
passed the House of Lords without a division, and is
supported in the House of Commons by the same

" Goody " and the same ," Gladdy" (as SYDNEY SMITH '
dubbed this saintly pair) who, in 1841, saw the destruc-
tion of Christianity and our Constitution in the admis-
sion of Jews to only corporate offices.
Mr. DITETT'S Bill of 1841 was confined to the admis-
sion to corporate offices only, because there was no hope
then of getting more from the douse of Lords ; but Sir
ROBERT PEEL, who can do as he lists with that august
assembly, has not the same excuse for the imperfection
of his measure ; he would experience no more opposi
tion from his own party if he proposed to remove all the
civil disabilities of the Jews than he meets with to his pre-
sent measure, aial he would have from the Liberal party
on which he depends for the success of all his measures,
a more hearty and vigorous support. And consistency
is as much violated by the small measure as it would be
by the greater.
Its it meant by this Bill that a Jew is fit to be an
alderman, but not fit to be a Member of Parliament ?
The argument for the Bill is, that a Jew already possesses
privileges, which are inconsistent with the refusal to brim
of aldermanie dignity. lie may be a county magistrate,
and a deputy-lieutenant of a county, but he cannot under
the present law (the Bishop of LLANBIFF'S law) be an
alderman of London or Norwich. Inconsis.ent, doubt-
less ; but inconsistency will not be got rid of until ell
civil disabilities alike are removed. The mere removal
of one disability only increases the inconsistency. The
more privileges you allow the weaker is your case for
withholding what you continue to withhold. Mark the
present state of Jewish rights and disabilities. We un-
derstand that Jews have lately entered the Indian civil
service ; and that when once they have entered
that service there is nothing to prevent them
from rising to its highest honours. On the
death, or sudden recd, of a Governor- General, a
member of the Council of Calcutta acts as Governor-
General till the arrival of his successor. A Jew may
do this ; but, on his return home, he cannot be a Member
of the British Parliament. Ile may run the race of the
MaLcoasts and ELPHINSTONES in India, hut in the land
of his birth he may not aspire to associations in fame
with the BURILES and the WYNDHAM and the CAN-
NING& He must limit his ambition in England to the
mayoralty of his native town, or the honours of county
magistracy. Is wealth power ? A Jew may rule the
world on our Exchange, but he cannot legislate for his
country in St. Stephen's. Sir ROBERT PEEL need not
go to the Secretary of the Order of Baronets to learn
that the Baronet on its first institution was not an empty
title. A Jew may be a Baronet ; the QUEEN has con-
ferred that honour on Sir ISAAC GOLDS3IID, and never
was honour better deserved ; but he shall not, says Sir
ROBERT PEEL, be a Baron. But PEEL would not be PEEL
without half measures and arbitrary distinctions.

Madrid papers of the 10th inst. have arrived. The royal
decree limiting the freedom of the press had arrived in
Madrid from Barcelcna, and was to appear in the official
Gazette of the following day. The terms of it are said to be
very stringent. Madrid was quiet, but great anxiety was
expressed respecting the events passing in Catalonia. It
would appear, however, that Coxcitn has completely sup-
pressed the insurrection in that province.

The Duke DJ GLUCKSBERG had not left Madrid for Bar-
celona, as has been announced in some of the French papers,
but remained there to act as Chargé d'Affaires during the
Absence of Count BRESSON. The Clamor Public° states, on
the authority of a letter from Cadiz, that no amelioration of
the treatment of its two editors, who were prisoners in the
fort of Santa Catharina, had taken place. The Espanol
mentions that the roof of the celebrated Carmelite convent at
Seville, one of the most valued historical monuments in
Spain, had fallen in, with a large portion of the walls. These
journals quote a paragraph from the Gibraltar Chronicle of
the 2d, stating that the Governor, Sir ROBERT WiLsox, had
received official intelligence from Tangiers, of the ratification
of the boundary treaty between France and Morocco.

The Infante Don FRANC BCO DE PAULA held, the 10th,
a levee in the Palace of Buen Retiro, on the occasion of the
feast of his daughter Donna AMELIA. FELIPA. It was re-
marked that the Charges d'Affaires of France and Belgium
were among the first to present their homages to the Princess.
The Three per Cents. closed at 28 5-16 for cash, and 28i
at 60 days; the Four per Cents. at 20i at 60 days; the Five
per Cents. at 21i at 60 days ; the Coupons at 26 ; the Vales
at 10i ; and the Debt without Interest at 6i at 60 days.

The Paris papers of Wednesday have arrived. On the dis-
cussion of the budget of expenses in the Chamber of Peers on
the preceding day, Count MONTALEMBERT drew the atten-
tion of the Chamber to the recent occurrences in Syria, and
concluded by asking the Minister for Foreign Affairs the
following questions :—Had the Government taken any steps
to prevent a renewal of the atrocities which had been perpe-
trated? Had it chastised at once the authors of the murders
and those who had countenanced them ? Secondly, had
the Government taken any steps to make the English Ca-
binet aware how much the conduct of the British Consul at
Beyrout in these sad circumstances had differed from the
course which humanity would suggest, and from the respect
due to a friendly nation ? Thirdly, had not the Minister for
Foreign Affairs acknowledged, since these events in Syria,
that the combination of five Powers, which might be of
3crvice clsewhei c, was of a nature to destroy French influence
in the East ? The following is M. GUIZOT'S reply :
‘, The Minister of Foreign Affairs had to lament that the matters
complained of by the Noble Peer were unfortunately quite exact.
If all the facts were enumerated before the Chamber, the Noble
Peers around him would be filled with indignation and grief.
These acts had been foreseen in 1841, and the French Government
had done all it could to prevent them. But he must be allowed to
declare that the Government was then in a poor position to take
on itself with authority the part of the Christians in the East. In
fact it had recently abandoned them in the struggle which they had
to sustain against the pretensions of the Pacha of Egypt, and that
had singularly weakened its position at Constantinople, when
speaking of the Libanus. France had endeavoured, with the other
Powers, to have the ancient mode of government restored, as far as
that was possible with the new state of things. Let it not be forgotten
that France was treating with an independent State, and that it
was a delicate matter to insist with the Ottoman Government in
favour of the Catholics of the East. The French Government
had for two years tried to effect something in favour of the Christians
in the East, and it was then that the troubles alluded to had oc-
curred. It was quite correct to say that the Turkish authorities
had lent their aid to the Druses, and the French Government had
pointed out the fact strongly to the Turkish Cabinet. It must net be
forgotten that there were two parties in Turkey ; the fanatical one,
which hoped for nothing less than the destruction of both Druses
and Maronites ; and the conservative one, remarkable for intelli-
gence and eagerness to adopt reforms. The former it was which,
having partisans in the army, had looked coolly on at the evils which
occurred in Syria. France could only act by influence in Turkey, and
it must be acknowledged that her task was a most difficult one. As
to the monastery, where some of the monks were killed, the French
Government had demanded punishment on the guilty party in such
terms as could not be denied. It was tree that in the question now
discussed the French and English agents had not been of precisely
the same mind, but the English Government wished for the same
peaceful termination of events in Syria as France, and he hoped that
all differences would be soon found to have disappeared, and the
affairs of Syria ameliorated."

In answer to M. "DH BOISSY, M. GulzoT entered into a
history of the recent negotiations at Rome on the subject of
the suppression of the Jesuits, and, in reply. the Count
MoNTALEMBERT said that he considered the determination
come to as nothing, as the question would return each time
the question of public instruction was brought forward.

The Journal des Debats has the following observations in
relation to this portion of the debate:—

" M. de Boissy alluded to the only question which now occupies
the public mind—the affair of the Jesuits, and the negotiations of
which it has been the subject with the Court of Rome. We, on
this occasion, owe our thanks to M. de Boissy, for we should have
regretted the session closing without the Government having had
an opportunity of giving categorical explanations on the subject.
These were yesterday given by the Minister of Foreign Affairs,
and we thiak they were of a nature to dissipate all the doubts and
overthrow all the pitiful quibbles which the Opposition journals
have been raising during the last few days. It was wished to
know why the Government preferred adopting diplomatic negotia-
tion to legal and material means of repression. M. Guizot
explained himself on this point with a force of ar-
gument and a loftiness of language which will, we hope,
suffice to convince the most prejudiced mind. It was asked,
with whom the representative of France had negotiated ?
M. Guizot said, and repeated in the most formal terms,
that it was with the Court of Rome, with the Pontifical Go-
vernment exclusively and directly, that the negotiations were
opened, followed up, and concluded. The result of these nego-
tiations is known, the rest is of little consequence. We have not
to concern ourselves with the resources which the Court of Rome
thought it its duty to employ to give satisfaction to the complaints
and the wishes of France. In a word, we wish to have done with
the Jesuits. Instead of having recourse to force, we have obtained
all by reasoning and persuasion. Have we, by the account given
by M. Guizot, lost anything by this liberal, religious, pacific, and
pacifying solution f Let us rather say that we have gained every-
thing. The Count de Montaleaabert evinced more zeal than cool-
ness in his reply to M. Guizot. We require to call to our mind
that the orator spoke under the impression of a legitimate dis-
appointment, in order not to notice too severely the fresh pro-
vocations which he has uttered from the tribune. Let M. de
Montalembert speak in his own name; let him speak in that of his
dispersed advance guard ; we can conceive the gall which he
throws into his speech, but we will not believe, until we have proof
to the contrary, that he is the organ of the French clergy; we
will not offer that insult to the eighty bishops behind whom he has,
nevertheless, dared to place himself, to launch forth his manifesto.
If we are so unfortunate as to be deceived—if the war terminated
with the Jesuits is to re.commence with the episcopacy, as it is
not feared to threaten us with, we will accept, in spite of our.
selves, this new situation, and we will accept it with all its con-
sequences. But let it be well known—we shall be the first to
appeal to the energy of the Government, and we have the firm
hope that it will know how to resist those arrogant pretensions. It
is thus we understand the short and energetic
reply of M. Guizot."

On Wednesday the discussion on the Budget was renewed,
when the Marquis DE BOISSY attacked the treaty lately con-
cluded with this country on the subject of the suppression
of the slave trade. He complained that, though five English
officers had been examined before the negotiators, only three
French ones had been called before them. Why, he asked,
was this concession made? The Noble Peer also referred to
the fact that the eastern coast of Africa was left free from
cruisers, thus allowing a disguised traffic in slaves to be
carried on. The Duke Da BROGLIE replied that it was
useless going back on a matter now concluded. The Noble
Peer, he observed, always confounded the slave trade with
slavery. The former had been abolished in the West Indies,
because the slaves belonged to only certain masters; but
slavery existed in the East Indies, and was, in a certain
measure, a religious institution, which England was obliged
to maintain. The Noble Duke continued to defend the
treaty in the same terms as he had previously employed.
The Three per Cents. closed on the Paris Bourse on Wed-
nesday, at 83f. 15c. ; the New Loan at 83f. 50c. ; the Five
per Cents. at 121 f. 45c. ; Orleans Railroad Shares, 1,141 f.
; Rouen, 1,021 f. 25c. ; 737 f. 50c. ; Havre,
835 f. ; Avignon, 955 f. 25c. ; Basle, 250 f. ; Spanish Actives,
36:4 ; Spanish Passives, 6A.