The Sun.
London, England, 1845-03-12 00:00:00

trtninss

LONDON, WEDNESDAY, MARCH 12, 1345.

The Lords met at Five o'clock, and sat only for a
few minutes.

On the motion of the Earl of CADOGAN, certain re-
turns relating to the proceedings of the Ecclesiastical
Commissioners were ordered to be laid on the table.

A petition on the subject of the Scotch Currency
was presented by the Earl of ROSEBERY.
The Stamp Duties Assimilation Bill was read a
second time. Several other Bills were forwarded a
stage, and their Lordship; adjourned.
The Iloa4 a of Commons met at Twelve.

The Lands Clauses Consolidation Bill passed through
Committee, and was ordered to be read a third time on
Thursday.
Mr. CARDWELL brought up the Sugar Ditties Bill,
which was read a first time.
The House then resolved itself into Committee on the
Railway Clauses Consolidation Bill.
Oa clause 66 being proposed, enforcing Companies to
use engines, for the conveyance of passengers and
goods,
Mr. STANSFIELD proposed, as an amendment, that
the clause, instead of being merely permissive, should be
compulsory.
After a short discussion, the Committee divided,
when there appeared—For the amendment, 17; Against
it, 31 ; Majority for the clause, 14. Clauses up to
69, inclusive, were then agreed to, when the House re-
sumed, and the Chairman having reported progress,
asked leave to sit again on Thursday.
The House then adjourned to Five o'clock.
When the House re-assembled,
Sir R. PEEL gave notice that he would, on Thursday
next, move that the House do adjourn from Thursday

the 20th instant, to the Monday week following.
After a short conversation on the subject of the nego-
tiations of Mr. MANDEVILLE with the Governments of
Buenos Ayres and Monte Video,
Mr. HumE moved for certain returns relating to army
pensioners, which were granted.
Mr. LABOUCIIERE then complained that the Sugar
Duties Bill had been forwarded a stage at the morning
sitting; ar.d
Sir R. PEEL, admitted that it occurred through inad-
vertence, and gave a pledge that, in future, no Money
Bill should be taken at a morning sitting without notice.
Mr. SomEs then moved for " Copies of all corre-
spondence between the Colonial-office and the Governor
of New Zealand respecting the issue of debentures,
and the rendering them a legal tender. Of all corre-
spondence between the same respecting the taxes pro-
posed in the Legislative Council of that colony. Of all
correspondence between the same respecting recent out-
rages by the natives in the Bay of Islands, and the
abolition of the custom-house of that district. Of
all correspondence respecting the measures taken by
the Governor of New Zealand to fulfil Lord
Stanley's agreement of the 12th May, 1843, respecting
the grant of a conditional title to the lands of the
New Zealand Company. Of all correspondence res-
specting the disallowance by the Governor (4' New
Zealand of any awards made by the Commissioner of
Land Claims respecting the Company's lands. Of all
correspondence relating to a proclamation issued by the
Governor of New Zealand allowing the sale of lands
by the natives at a less price than that fixed by the
Act of 5 and 6 Vic., c. 36."
Mr. AGLIONUY, in seconding the motion, entered into

a detail of the grievances under which the New Zea-
land colonists laboured, and stated that, in his opinion,
the Colonial-office, as at present constituted, was
utterly incompetent to attend properly to the affairs of
our numerous colonies.
Mr. G. W. HOPE complained of the conduct of the
Hon. Member for Cockermouth, and said that all the
information which he required had been at his com-
mand a fortnight ago, and moved as an amendment, that

the whole of the papers should be produced.
Mr. C. BULLER said the :House was in possession of
no information whatever on the subject, and, therefore,
it WAi perfectly ludicrous for the Under-Secretary for the
Colonies to say that the information might have been
obtained a fortnight ago. He complained, not only of
the ill-usage of New Zealand, but of all the colonies ; of
the utter ignorance—the gross, the utter ignorance of
every person connected with the Colonies—of the
colonists themselves, from the Governor up to
the very head of the colonial-office himself.
Governor FITZROY had mismanaged the colony in such
a manner as to show his utter incompetency for the
onerous position which he held. He was not merely in-
competent, but was positively mischievous and dangerous.
The Government ought to have recalled that very foolish
man, Captain FITZROY, long since, and their duty
was to send out a keeper for Captain FITZROY, and to
send out his successor at the same time.

Colonel TREVOR said it was unjust to assail Captain
FITZROY in his absence. He should not have risen had
not Captain FITZROY been his relative.
Colonel WOOD, as a connection of Captain FITZROY,
felt bound to protest against the attack which had been
made upon him.
Sir W. JA3IES also eulogized Captain FITZROY.

Sir CHARLES NAPIER admitted that Captain FITZ-
ROY was a very clever officer, but for all that
he might make a precious bad Governor. The
Government made a grand mistake when they sent
Captain FITZROY to govern New Zealand. He would
have made a much better Chancellor of the Exchequer
Nevertheless, he was a gallant officer; but instead of
shaking hands with the murderers of Captain WAKE-
FIELD, he ought to have executed them.

Sir U. PEEL besought the House to suspend its judg-
ment upon the conduct of Captain FITZROY until they
had certain information on which to proceed. Captain
FITZROY had certainly omitted to forward them certain
information, but he would ask the House whether it
was not within the range of protability that this omis-
sion had been occasioned by some accident or other
Whenever a specific motion should be made on the sub-
ject, he should be prepared to vindicate the conduct of
the Government.

Mr. MANCLES, in supporting the motion, said that he
had heard the conduct of Captain FITZROY strongly up-
held by the Right Hon. Baronet, on which
Sir R. PEEL said, across the table, in a very emphatic
Manner, " Certainly not."
Mr. MINGLES continued to -observe, that whatever
consideration Captain FITZROY ought to be entitled to
on account of his distance from the Government, the
colonists were entitled to the same consideration, and
they had suffered severely for his con-
duct. He had been sent out by Lord STANLEY
to explain away the agreement which had been
entered into between the colonists and Lord JOHN
RUSSELL, and to bring the colony under the iron-foot of
the Colonial-office. Had the Company been aware of
the instructions given by Lord STANLEY to Captain
FITZROY, they would at once have thrown up the affair,
and have resigned themselves to the inevitable loss en-
tailed upon them by those instructions.
Sir R. INcus defended the conduct of Capt. FITZROY.
The motion was then agreed to with a verbal amend-
mend moved by Mr. HOPE.

Mr. S. CRAWFORD then rose to call the attention of the
House to the ptition from the rate-payers and inha-
bitants of Rochdale (presented February 25), against
the introduction of the new poor-law into their district;

and moved, " That the petitioners be heard at the bar of
the House, in support of the allegations contained in that
petition."
Mr. FERRAN!) supported the motion, which was op-
posed by Sir J. GRAHAM. After some observations by
several lion. Members, the House divided, when there
appeared, for the motion, 16; against it, 59; majority
against it, 43. The House then adjourned at One
o'clock.

The debate raised in the House of Commons, on
Monday night, by Mr. CHARLES BULLER'S declaratory
motion—" That the circumstances under which the re-
newal of the income-tax is at present proposed are such
as to render it extremely improbable that Parliament
will have the power of dispensing with its continuance at
the end of three years ; and that it is therefore the duty
of the House to take care that the tax be imposed in a
form in which its operation shall be less unequal and
inquisitorial than it now is "—was one of the most ho-
portant which has yet been taken on this great question•
Thanks to the ability and ingenuity with which Mr•
BULLER intrt ducal his motion, the true statement of
this case between the Premier and the public was fairly
brought before the House of Commons. The singular
hardihood with which Sir ROBERT PEEL has, over and
again, attempted to persuade the people who are to pay
the income and property-tax that they lose no more by
its imposition than what is made up to them in what
they gain through his tariff, and this year's reductions of
duties, has often excited our astonishment. Mr. BULLER
may claim the merit of having so completely unmasked
and anatomized this pretext, that we suspect it will
scarcely be hazarded again this session. There is, in
truth, no more real equation between the burden of the
income-tax and the benefits of the tariff, than there is
between the total amount of anonymous remittances to
Chancellors of the Exchequer of 501. Bank of England
notes, " like angels' visits, few and far between," and the
stupendous capital of the national debt, towards the re-
duction of which they are expressly desired to be applied.
This was an absurdity palpable enough, and Mr.
BULLER made the most of it. But there was a better
joke behind. Some gentlemen on the Opposition
benches had designated the scheme, announced by the
Premier on the 14th of February, as the "poor man's
budget." There is nothing like a good set name to induce
people who have not closely looked into a given plan to
concur in your opinion of it. We have already borne
testimony to the intrinsic merits, and they were neither
few nor slight, of that financial statement. But as to its
being the " poor man's budget," Mr. BULLER, whose
views on this point were frankly and ably sustained by
Sir H. 11. Isionrs, has permanently demolished, we fear, its
every shadow of such a title. In testing the amount of be-
nefit which a poor couple, for example, would derive from
such fiscal reductions as that proposed on the duty on
raw cotton, Mr. BULLER was eminently effective and
amusing, without exceeding the fair limits of an argu-
ment raised, undoubtedly, on au extreme case. Thu
result of his calculation was to show, that while the man
might gain, say lid. on the cost of a complete fustian
suit, and the woman another lid. on the cost of two
cotton gowns, per annum, they would be paying, on a
moderate computation of their yearly consumption of
sugar, threepence per month to the West India pro-
prietor under the operation of the Premier's un-
fortunate scale of altered sugar duties. I❑
fine, he established a strong case to show that
the apprehensions suggested by the terms of his
motion were well warranted ; that there had been no
sufficient previous inquiry into the present con-
dition of our taxation, so as either to afford a
guarantee against the continuance of the income-
tax beyond this assumed period of three years, or to

render its operation less oppressive and inqui3ito,

rial than it now is. If the lion. Member for Liskeard
was warranted in his view of the case, namely—that,
whilst the Premier proposed to remit a specific amount
of certain duties, his other proposition was virtually
to continue the income-tax for ever—we are compelled to
admit that they who ought to represent the interests of
their countrymen at large are making themselves parties
to a most ►candalous and improvident bargain. If they who
vote with the Minister in his majorities on the income-tax
really consider that it is a tax which is to be a permanent
one, or which is to endure even for the term of three
years doubled, they are dishonest trustees. They know
that the parties by whom they have been deputed to act
have never anticipated any such protraction of this war
impost. They know that the public would have in-
structed them to kick the proposition out of the House
on the first evening of its introduction had it been ac-
companied by any such condition fairly stated ; and we
must reluctantly confess that our own fears are strongly
aroused by the tone assumed on both sides of the House
throughout the whole current of the debate. It
was a, statesmanlike objection which Mr. BULLER
took to the danger of adopting, in time of peace,
the extreme limit to which the in inciple
of direct taxation can be pushed in time of war—thus
proclaiming to the world the extent to which the extra-
ordinary resources of our taxation had been drawn upon
before the occurrence of that extraordinary exigency for

which they should have been sacredly reserved. But
we are more alarmed by the tacit assent ' which the
hypothesis of intended permanency, or, at any rate, of
protracted duration to the income-tax, received in suc-
;:essionfrom the speeches of the Chancellor of the Exche-
qu'er, Lord HOWICK, Sir. B. INGLIS, Mr. HuME, and
Sir R. PEEL himself. We,, have not forgotten the
answer which the Premier gave on a former occasion to
Mr. WANI.EY'S very reasonable question, " Whether, at
the expiration of the three years the income-tax would be
further continued?" "It would be time enough," quoth
Sir ROBERT, "to answer that question when the
three years bad expired." Now we deny this
off-hand assertion. The House has already had

abundant experience of this sort of tactics in the Pre-
mier's plans of fiscal operations. Whether it be a pro-
position connected with the Currency question, or the
Bank Charter, or the income-tax, his smartness is
shown in Lever allowing those who are opposed to him
any opportunities of maturely considering the measures
he has propounded, or of preparing their objections, or
of organising their resistance to it. This has been
made the subject of repeated and well-ground: .d corn •
plaint during the present session; as it was towards the
conclusion of the last. For the Chancellor of the Ex•
chequer,therefore, to have complained on Monday night
that Mr. BULLER was coming forward " at the eleventh
hour" with his objections to theincome•tax, was a reproof
which came with singular bad gr:ioe on such a question
from any member of her MAJESTY'S Government. We
think that Sir It. PEEL is amenable to a charge of bad
faith tin his mode of unfairly pressing on the decision—
we mean the vote of his Ministerial majority—on the
continuance of this odious tax ; as well as to the impu-
tation of extreme rashness and impolicy, in resorting at
all to the principle of an income-tax (our exception is
not to a property-tax), at so advanced a period of peace,
for supplementing a deficient revenue. After the inti-
mations elicited on Monday night as to the possible
perpetuity of this tax, and the cold discouragement
with which :Sir R. H. ImiLts's equitable proposition
in favour of small ineomes was received, we can no
longer give to the Government proposal the benefit of
any doubts we might have formerly entertained upon it.
It is vicious in principle, cruelly and clumsily unequal in
'ipportionment, light upon the rich, heavy upon the poor,
inquisitorial in its levy, irritating in its management,
wasteful in its anticipation of resources, and odious in all
its associations and precedents.

By the arrival of the Peninsular and Ori►antal Com-
pany's steamer Pacha, we have accounts from Gibraltar
to the,lst, and Lisbon to the:sth inst., and regmt to state
that news had been received at the former plaoe of the
death of Mr. HAY, British Consul at Tangiers. He bad
been ill for only a few days. At Lisbon a law
had been introduced into the Cortes for the re-
construction of the Council of State. The. receipts
at the Custom-house for the month of Februiviry bad
fallen off considerably. There is no news fi •om the
other ports at which the steamer touched. The voyage
had been long and boisterous. From the ltime the
Pacha left Gibraltar till her arrival here, she experi-
Paced nothing but the most tempestuous weatlaper. On
the Bth and 9th she
.could not make more theta three
miles an hour.

We have no accounts from Zurich later than the 6th
instant., but some details are given in the papers re-
specting the appointment of the Committee on t las. ques-
tion relative to the Jesuits, and the views takers by the
different Deputies, which are not without intere4. The
Committee Las been appointed, and consists od seven
members. 'Only thirteen out of the twenty-foul• Depu_
ties voted, viz., Zurich, Berne, Glaris, Soleure, Schaff-
hausen, St. Gall, Argau, Thurgau, Grisons, Vaad, Tes-
sin°, Neuchatel, Geneva. The demi-cantons of Bale and
Appenzell neutralised each other. The rest of tb e can-
tons abstained from voting. All the Committee .except
one were named at the first ballot. M. MOUSON, %of Zu-
rich, had 11 votes ; M. NEUHAUS, of Berne, Y.l ; M.
MUNTZIG ER, of Soleure, 9; M. KERN, of Thurgam, 8; M.
NEFF, of Saint Gall, 8 ; M. FREY, of Pale-Town, ;
DRUEY, of Vaud, 10. From this it will be seen that the
majority of the Committee belongs to the Radice? party.
After the nomination of the Committee the question of
the free corps was opened. Fourteen Deputies detailed
their instructions. Lucerne, Uri, Schwytz, Unterwald,
Zug, and Fribourg, fully approve of the repressive mea-
sures proposed by the Vorort ; Saint Gall, Grisons, and
Appenaell, do the same, with the exception of certain