PARLIAMENTARY INTELLIGENCE.

New Zealand Colonist and Port Nicholson Advertiser, Volume I, Issue 10, 2 September 1842, Page 3

PARLIAMENTARY INTELLIGENCE.

— o — House of Commons, April 11.

Mr. J. Duncombe moved, that a petition he wished to present against the income-tax from certain persons engaged in trades and professions in London be brought up. Sir Robery Peel opposed the motion, on the ground of its being contrary to the usage of the House for the last 150 vears.

Lord Howick thought their admiration of former usages of the House, ought not to be blind and unreasoning, and that the old objection to these petitions was removed by the modern prohibition of discussion upon them. Mr. Milnes supported the old practice.

Lord John Russell felt himself bound to support the motion. After some discussion the House divided, when the numbers were, for receiving the petition 221, against 222; majority 1. The Income Tax. —The adjourned debate on the reception of the resolutions of Lord John Russell’s amendment, was resumed by Dr.

Bowring, who was persuaded, that the principle of direct taxation was a true one.

Mr. Galley Knight opposed the principle of direct taxation, on the ground that the late ministry had left their successors a deficit of £5,000,000, a war in China, a war in India, and and an unsettled boundary in America. ... Lord Stanley, in answer to a statement made by Mr. Macaulay, that the disasters in India, in a commercial point of view, were insignificant, said—- “ Now, upon that low ground, I meet the right hon. gentleman, and tell him, he forms a poor measure, and a false measure, of the embarrassments which result from the miserable policy which has been pursued in relation to Affghanistan. Will the right hon. gentleman, the late President of the Board of Control, agree with him ? I know that that right hon. gentleman’s knowledge of India, and his official connexion with that department, will have taught him to estimate more truly, and, I shall say, more humanely, than the right hon. gentleman (Mr. Macaulay), even the financial embarrassments which our army has sustained in Affghanistan. The right hon. gentleman (Mr. Macaulay) says, that, in a financial point of view, those disasters will not cost the <£600,000 which is thrown away by the reduction on the timber duties—that the total expense, including the fresh troops sent out, will not exceed £400,000. The disasters of Afghanistan might be convenient, said the right hon. gentleman, for the purposes of sophistry ; but, in a commercial point of view, they are contemptible. But how did he follow up that declaration ? What did he say to you of the freemasonry of Islamism ? What did he tell you of the religious feelings of the people ?—Of the great Mahommedan success, that could not fail to fall like a spark upon tow ? And when he estimated, by pounds, shillings, and pence, the loss of those brave men —(cries of “ Oh !”) —when the right hon. gentleman has made his calculation of the sum of money—(loud cries of “Oh !”) —I quote from the right hon. gentleman’s own words —(cheers) —and I say to those gentlemen who cry “ Oh,” that the right hon. gentleman told us, that upon this occasion, although he admitted the disasters to be greater than the Walcheren, yet that he looked upon the loss as inferior to that of the timber duties —(“ No, no”); that, upon the present occasion, we have only to deal with it as a financial question; and that it was one which he proposed to measure by pounds, shillings, and pence. I say, when the right hon. gentleman has made his calculations of his pounds, shillings, and pence, in which we are financially to measure those great disasters which have befallen the British armies in Affghanistan—that lie has submitted all those frightful anticipations which must necessarily arise to any man who gives a moment’s consideration to the subject; and when the right hon. gentleman declares that this great Mahomedan success was falling like a spark upon tow, and that the freemasonry of Islamism was extending from Morocco to Coromandel, in an empire which rests upon th e prestige of opinion, who shall calculate, even in a financial point of view, the expenditure—the ruinous and extravagant expenditure—that we must be led into, if we intend to support our character in India, and to renew and to maintain against that spirit, and against those feelings which the right hon. • gentleman has referred to, as well as against the recent disasters, the prestige of the invincibility of the British arms in that part of our dominions ? The noble lord opposite (Russell) argued as if landed property escaped from those duties which fell on personal property. Now, his right honourable friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer showed clearly, and even from the authority of the late Chancellor of the Exchequer, that the assumption of the noble lord was not only erroneous in detail, but that it was utterly false in principle—(Hear, hear). The right honourable gentleman the member for Portsmouth', whose opinion was referred to by his right honourable friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer, showed in 1840, to the satisfaction of the House, that this was the case. But it appeared that the noble lord did not entertain the same view of the subject, or he would not have proposed his scheme to the House in the manner in which he did. It had been clearly shown by the authorities which he had stated, that landed property contributed to the exigencies of the state at least to the same amount as personal property — (“ Hear, hear, hear,” from the opposition). He admitted that it did not pay legacy duty—(cheers), but then did honourable gentlemen forget the heavy stamp duties on marriage settlements, and the charges that arose from all family settlements —(Laughter, and cries of “ Hear, hear,” from the opposition) ? He believed that many honourable gentlemen opposite were not practically aware of these charges they had no cognisance of the charges on landed property in making marriage settlements, or in any other description of family settlement, such, for instance, as the eldest son coming of age—(A laugh). When, therefore, gentlemen, opposite talked of the payment of £1,700,000. legacy duty, he would remind them of the £1,680,000. paid for stamps on transfers and settlements on real property. In addition to this, he begged honourable gentlemen to recollect that a large proportion of the legacy duty fell on real property, such, for instance, as leasehold property —(Cheers). But he would not weary the House on these topics, as he was aware that }he subject was exhausted.

Referring to a paragraph in our last number, copied from the London Times, alluding to the natural disadvantages under which the settlement at this Port labours, we inadvertently omitted to remark, that the extract in question was inserted for the purpose of showing the erroneous statements which are transmitted home with regard to the Colony, and need hardly say that our own opinions are totally at variance with those expressed in the extract.

Court Martial and Suicide. —A bombardier of the Royal Artillery at Ballincollig was tried by court-martial a few days ago, and sentenced to be reduced to the rank of private, for repeated, drunkenness. When the finding was promulgated, he retired to his room, and put a period to his existence by discharging the contents of his firelock into his mouth. —Cork Reporter. The following is a list of the Bishops resident at the present time in the Colonies of Britain : Jamaica, Charles Lipscomb, D.D.; Barbadoes and the Leeward Islands, W. H. Coleridge, D.D.; Nova Scotia,. John lnglis, D.D. ; Calcutta, Daniel Wilson, D.D.; Madras, G., T. Spencer, D.D.; Bombay, Thomas Carr, D.D.; Montreal, G. J. Mountain, D.D; Australia, W. G. Broughton, D.D.; Toronto, John Strachan, D.D.; Newfoundland, A. G. Spencer, D.D. ; New Zealand, G. A. Selwyn, D.D.