On this page
-
Text (1)
-
Untitled Article
Note: This text has been automatically extracted via Optical Character Recognition (OCR) software. The text has not been manually corrected and should not be relied on to be an accurate representation of the item.
-
-
Transcript
-
Note: This text has been automatically extracted via Optical Character Recognition (OCR) software. The text has not been manually corrected and should not be relied on to be an accurate representation of the item.
Additionally, when viewing full transcripts, extracted text may not be in the same order as the original document.
Untitled Article
of the late Government too plainly showed that the Earl of Derby had not surmounted the fatal rashness and unconciliatory temper which characterized him when Colonial Secretary in 1833 , and that during his late tenure of office he had been bent upon renewing an old conflict with a new and more powerful assembly . He entered at large into the argument put forward by the adversaries of the measure , that the denomination " Protestant" clergy applied only to the Church of England , and contended earnestly that it must be hold to include also the clergy of dissenting bodies . Ho referred to the opinions of Lord G-osford , Lord Durham , and Lord Svdenham , who had all recommended
that Government should act on the principle of religious equality in Canada , of which the present measure would be the most effective guarantee . From the year 1791 downwards , every authority of note had considered that the question of the . clergy reserves was essentially a local and not an imperial question , to bo left to the decision of the local legislature , as this bill provided . The real question for the consideration of the House was this , whether they would now adopt as the rule of their policy the maxim that all questions of religion , and all questions affecting domestic interests , should bo left for the decision of the local legisJature . If they would adopt this principle it would tend more than any other to the consolidation and permanence of our colonial empire .
He ' was followed by Lord John Manners , who thought her Majesty ' Government had introduced the most unjust and unwise of legal robberies under the specious guise of a concession to religious equality , ami a recognition of just principles of colonial government ; by Mr . Vernon , who defended , and Mr . Liddeix , who attacked the bill . Then came Mr . Adderley , who contended that the Canadians have a parity of rights with the British people ; then Mr . Mills on the other side ; and then the Chancellor of the Exchequer , who warned the House against disregarding the voice of the nuthorised constitutional organs of public opinion in Canada *
" The repeal of the act of 1840 was prayed for by addresses of the Legislative Council and Assembly of the colony . The question "was not as to the use which would be made of the power over the reserved Iand 3 of Canada , but as to the hands in which it should be lodged . In 1791 Mr . Pitt left to the Canadian legislature the same faculty which this bill proposed to transfer to them . It was contended on the other side that the reserved lands were intended exclusively for the support of the Protestant faith in Canada ; but the fact was that the Eoraan Catholic clergy had received more money from this source than those of all the existing Protestant denominations . If there was any man who had made the maintenance of the present law impossible , it was the right honourable baronet ( Sir John Pakington ) , whilst ho was a- Minister of tho Crown . With words of peace and conciliation in his
mouth , hia proposals m fact amounted to a violation ot every principle of colonial freedom . If public faith was involved in anything , it was in the present distribution of property , which the right hon . baronet had avowed his complete readiness to unsettla . He would seriously recommend to honourable gentlemen , before commencing any conflict with the colonists , to consider where it was Iilcely to end , as if anything wero demanded by tho dignity of tho British Parliament , it was to avoid playing over again the game of the American war . He could conceive nothing more detrimental to tho Church of England than tluit sho should engage in a perfectly hopeless struggle . He defied any enemy of tho Chiu-eh of England to proffer her a more deadly gift than that of arraying her in resistance to tho just claims of our countrymen in distant lauds . If the bill passed quietly , there was the best ground for expecting that existing endowments would bes respected by I ho colonial legislature . "
After a littlo more debate the Government earned tho day , on a division , by u splendid majority of 83 . The numbers being—For tho second reading , 275 ; Against it , 192 .
Beside this Canadian question . Mr . Dimkakm managed to make n political debate out of thu old question of Free-trrule and Protection ; whifli oaino up on Wednesday with new developments . Mr . Hume moved a string of resolutions , based upon certain returns , that ., while agricultural produce , cattle , < ic , are admitted to tin try duty free , to compete with similar productions of the United Kingdom , it is impolitic and unjust , to continue duties of import ; on articles of foreign manufacture of the same kind
witli those manufactured at home ; and that tho House will take into consideration the duties that nvo sti'ictly protective on articles of import , both of manufactures and agricultural produce , with tho view of speedily repealing tho same . In a speech of considerable length , abounding with details , ho urged the House to affirm hi . s propositions , observing , amid some languid cheering on the part of Protectionist moniluirs , that if we are to have Free-trade , in justice to the agriculturists , who were unequally taxed , Free-trade ought to bo fully carried out .
, lit ; was seconded by Mr . Mitoii icrx , who reprobated ad valorem duties , ua giving too much power to tho Custom House . Mr . ( iijADHroNio met tho Free-traders , as ho met previous propositions of ii like kind . He objected decidedly to tho motion , oii tho ground that tho House ought not to part with any part of tho standing revenuo until it knew whut was tho expenditure of tho country . The
first duty of the House was to vote the sums necessary for the public service , and then to consider in what manner the funds should be supplied . He objected to the form of tho motion , and hoped the House would not adopt the practice of making promises of what it will do , instead of acts and performances . He did not dissent from Mr . Hume ' s facts and principles , and agreed in tho spirit of the resolutions . He thought ifc would be a great advantage to get rid of nominal duties , and he concurred with Mr , Mitchell in thinking ad valorem duties objectionable .
A debate followed , which brought out one or two curious traits . Mr . Edward Ball supported the motion , because Free-trade ought to be carried out . It had hitherto been a gr ievous affliction to the farmer , and some of its benefits ought to fall upon them in future . But Mr . Newde&ate took quite an opposite view . Believing that Free-trade was injurious to the country—as , in his opinion , would be soon discoveredit would ill become him to advocate the repeal of protective duties . Independently of this objection , he recrarded the resolution as unfairly framed .
Then came other speakers on either side ; and then the chief of the Opposition unmasked himself . He drew cheers from his own party at the outset , by asserting that the cultivators of the soil had been subjected to an undue weight of taxation , and the late Government had considered the whole system of our taxation , with the view of affording- a remedy for what they conceived to be an injustice . They arrived at the conclusion that the best remedy was by consulting the interests of the consumer , and proposed certain measures which the House did not think proper to sanction . It was not true , he said , that these measures were offered as a new commercial system ; they were described as ouly the first step , and others were intimated . The late Government had shown the sincerity of their views
by relinquishingpower , and he bad abstained from harassing the present Government by financial discussions ; but on this occasion he was called upon to givo an opinion on-a question affecting the interests of agriculture . The Chancellor of the Exchequer had found this fault with tho motion—that that practical assembly required performance , not promise . But the resolution held out to the country a policy , and the question was whether it was a sound policy , and whether it was politic to hold out to the country the promise of it . Yet Mr . Gladstono had denounced the motion as merely a promise , and made a speech which was one long promise . The House was , then , to consider tho resolution only as a question of policy , and as he approved of the policy , and believed that it did justico to the agriculturists , he should vote for the motion .
Mi-. Caudwell challenged Mr . Disraeli with making a dexterous use of Mr . Gladstone's speech , and perverting its meaning . The argument of the Chancellor of the Exchequer , he said , was , " Do not commit yourselves by condemning any portion of the revenue until the time comes when you can give effect to your condemnation . " Mr . Miles had no objection to the resolutions , except that part which pledged the House to repeal the dutios . Mr . HUxUK expressed * his willingness to withdraw his motion ; but the Opposition insisted on dividing , and tho House having divided , tho motion was negatived by 159 against 101 .
At length this week brings us an end of the Maynooth debate for tho present session . It will be remembered that last week tho House , by a majority of 29 , decided that the main words of Mr . Spooner ' s motion should be struck out ; that then h ' ix o ' clock , tho fixed time for Wednesday ' s adjournment arrived , and tho consideration of Mr . Scholeliold ' a amendment was adjourned till Fridny . On that day it came on only to bo further adjourned until Wednesday this week . Accordingly on that day the debate
was resumed . It was altogether without intercut . Most of tho liberal members , especially tho Roman Catholics objected to tho amendment as not sufficiently comprehensive . Mr . IIumis wont tho length of advising Mr . Seholeficld to withdraw it ; but his advice was opposed bytSiu John Sukm , i ; y , Mr . W . , J . Fox , and others . The only lively speaking consisted of a furious attack made by Mr . Wui'i'JiSiDii : on the Maynootli and tho Papacy , and a defence of it by Mr . Serjeant Mirnviiy . Tho House then divided on tho following resolution : —
" That thiu House do rosolvo itself info a oominitleo to ennnidor nil enactments now in forco whorohy tho rovoutio of tho State is charged in aid of any ocelouiafitioal or religious purposed whataoover , with u viow to tho repeal of hucIi unaotinunts . "
Thoro wore for tho motion C 8 ; against it , 202 ; majority against , 194 . This was t ho only important proceeding which took place on Wednesday . Tuesday night was devoted to grievances . Mr . Wile
xiam Williams moved a resolution condemning tho partial incidence of the legacy and probate duties , and proposing to levy them on real property . He was met by a direct reply from Mr . Gladstone . Mr . Williams founded his argument on statistical statements , showing that personal property paid a large amount of taxation from which real property was exempt . He also alleged that the legacy and probate duties had been imposed by the landed interest , who refused to submit to similar taxes en their property . He showed that the existing law was partial and unjust ; that it afforded the rich a means of evasion ; and fell heavily on the poor . He calculated that nearly 5 , OO 0 , O 0 OZ . of revenue might be obtained from real property by these taxes . Mr . Gladstone ' s statement was intended to show
the difficulty of the subject , and that it was not quite eo clear a case of injustice as Mr . Williams made out . After characterizing the motion as a departure from the business of the House , for the sake of eliciting an abstract opinion , he admitted that perfect equality was the true principle of taxation , but to produce this equality he urged that we must regard the entire taxation of the country . He remarked that tho existing system was favourable to the small and not to the large landowner , and as regarded tho exemptions , it was just as much in the power of the owner of personal property to secure them under settlement as in that of the owner of realty , and a very important part of the funded property of the country was so settled .
In reference to this part of the c . ise he observed , that land settlements were usually bond fide , whereas settlements of personalty , by voluntary and revocable gifts , and secret assignments to trustees , were frequently not so , and ho adverted to the injustice of these last arrangements as affecting the Exchequer . Admitting the absurd state of tho law , he denied that these exemptions were a class question , or favourable to tho land . He reminded the House that annuities , sums charged on land , and Iand 3 directed to bo cold , paid tho duty , and that it had been estimated that euch duty was paid by seven-sixteenths of the landed property of the country . Were tho duties imposed equally all round , a different result , and one less favourable to
personalty , would ensue . He next observed , that the whole land of tho country was mortgaged to about a fourth of its value , and that beneficial interests to that extent paid the duties in question . It had been the policy of the Legislature , however , to burden the transfer , while lightening the descent , of land , and to pursue the opposite course in respect to personal property . Funded property paid nothing on transfer , and a 10 s . stamp was a receipt for a million of money . Then came tho important consideration of local burdens , of which land paid 10 , 000 , 000 / ., of which personalty knew nothing . It was premature to open the income-tax question , but no defence could be offered for
the present incidence of that tax on real property , which , instead of paying , like other property , on what had been received , paid on what had not . We must , ho urged , pub up with many inequalities , if they were prelty nearly balanced , and good government resulted ; but he would not deny that the law ought to bo altered , and the scale of probate , especially . But ho considered that the House should do nothing in the matter until they had arrived at general principles of taxation , and until the income-tax had been settled ; and , in opposing tho present motion , lie could only promise that ita subject should undergo his most careful examination .
Some discussion followed concluded by a division , in which Mr . Williams lost his motion by 124 to 71 . The other grievance was
THE ECCLESIASTICAL COURTS . Mr . Collieb brought this subject forward , in moving for n select committee for tho purpose of" inquiring whether the ecclesiastical courts might not be advantageously abolished , their jurisdiction over all matters not purely ecclesiastical trans / erred to other existing tribunals , and now courts established for the purpose of dealing speedily and enectually with matters purely ecclesiastical , and whether the jurisdiction of the Court of Admiralty might not be advantageously trnnr . terred to local tribunals . Mr . Collier gave an historical sketch of the courts , of which he aaid there existed 1572 ; described their onilicting and expensive working in
regard to matters of probate ; dwelt upon the enormous Haluries of tho sinecurists , the shameful way in which wills arcs kept ; , and the want of power of the courts in following up their own orders . Ho recommended the transfer of a portion of the probate ; jurisdiction ot the Ecclesiastical to the County Courts . The power to award complete divorce he proposed to confer elsewhere , and also to take away the jurisdiction of Uio courts in regard to church rates , until the .- ; o should bo doiieawii }' . As regarded other mutters , he described i . ho courts as
slmdcHVH of tinicM gone by , antecedent to Protestantism , and uheii there was but one Church ; and now they excited liI tie moro than contempt . Ho disputed any right on the part of tho proctors to compensation , hut would admit , them to practise us attorneys . Admitting ' tho vnluo of tho Court of Admiralty , ho urged that tins queHtions on which it had to decide mi ^ hl advantageously be submitted to local tribunals— either to tho judge * of flu ; County Courts , or to tho recorders of tho seaport towns . Whut ho proposed to do in England hail already virtually been done in Scotland . The evening conversation , for ifc was not a debate , took a curious turn . No ouo ventured to defend the
Untitled Article
March 5 , 1853 . ] THE LEADER . 219 — - — •
-
-
Citation
-
Leader (1850-1860), March 5, 1853, page 219, in the Nineteenth-Century Serials Edition (2008; 2018) ncse2.kdl.kcl.ac.uk/periodicals/l/issues/vm2-ncseproduct1976/page/3/
-