CO882-(1-2) — Page 147

PUBLIC RECORD OFFICE

Reference :-

C.O. 882

1

ALLY WITHOUT PERMISSION OF THE BE REPRODUCED PHOTOGRAPHIC- COPYRIGHT PHOTOGRAPH-NOT TO

PUBLIC RECORD OFFICE, LONDON

24

place have been of so ample a nature, that I feel that with the free discussion there, and the three weeks' probation of an ordinance in the Gazette, I have a right, and a great right, to go down to the Legislative Council and claim from the official members an unqualified support; from this position I shall not deviate; I have not come to it hastily or unadvisedly, and I state to you most distinctly, that the moment that that support is not freely, amply, and sufficiently rendered, it will be my duty to lay the case before the Secretary of State, with the intimation that if such practices are allowed, I cannot undertake the responsibility of the Government, or fulfil its duties with credit to myself or those who employ me.

It should, perhaps, be also mentioned, that he was the only member of the civil service in the Government, and that he considered his "free agency" somewhat impaired by this circumstance, because, in his opinion, "in Downing Street there was a very strong feeling against the members of the civil service" (1850,.4551); and it appears from other parts of the evidence that he considered the same circumstance diminished his influence with his colleagues.

Mr. Wodehouse's road ordinance (Ordinance No. 9 of 1848), on which he proposed to rely for reparation to the revenue, if the repeal of the export duties were postponed entirely to 1849, passed the 13th April, 1848. By this ordinance it was enacted that, after the 1st January, 1849, every male between the ages of 18 and 55, should in each year give six days' consecutive labour upon roads. The labour commutable for a money payment of 38.

Attention must now be directed to the new tax ordinances.

The other four ordinances respecting which Mr. Alodehouse and Sir E. Tennent gave conflicting testimony, as already mentioned, were the Fire- Arms ordinance; the Shop ordinance; the Dog ordinance; the Stamp ordinance.

The dates at which these ordinances severally passed were

December 14, 1848. Ordinance No. 6 of 1847 passed. "To regulate the possession of fire-arms.' No person to keep fire-arms without an annual

licence.

January 31, 1848. Stamp ordinance (No. 2 of 1848) passed. This ordinance, among many other provisions, fixed the annual fire-arms licence to be 2s. 6d.

Evidence, 1850.

4519.

Papers, 1849, page 120.

Page 41.

Papers, 1849, Page 108.

Page 133.

A

Papers, 1850, No. 1, page 38; and Minutes of Legislative Council.

Evidence, 1850-4213.

Minutes of Legislative Council. December 30, 1847.

December 31, 1847.

January 6, 1848.

Papers, 1849. Page 91.

Evidence, 1849.—4498, 4577.

Page 73.

1

25

April 10, 1848. Shop ordinance (No. 5 of 1848) passed. "To make provision for the registration and licensing of certain traders.”" This ordinance required keepers of shops of the annual value of 51. to take an annual 20s. licence."

April 13, 1848. Dog ordinance (No. 9 of 1848) passed. "To require the owners of dogs to take out licences for the same."

On the 18th December, 1848, the Shop ordinance and Dog ordinance were both repealed. Lord Tor- rington procured this repeal at the instance of Mr. Wodehouse. This is admitted by Sir E. Tennent.

On the 23rd December, 1847, the Fire-Arms ordinance was amended on the recommendation of Mr. Wodehouse, by doing away with the necessity for annual licences, and substituting one permanent licence.

The original draft of the Stamp ordinance in Schedule, Part 1, fixed the sums payable for licences on keeping shops and dogs, as well as on keeping fire-arms. After the second reading, the Council resolved itself into a Committee of the whole Council, and a sub-Committee was appointed to re- port upon the Bill. The sub-Committee reported that the schedule as to licences was almost nugatory: That legislative provision will hereafter be required similar to that already made in regard to the possessors of fire-arms, to`conspek the parties mentioned to take out these licences, and to define who the persons are that shall be required to obtain them. The present ordinance does no more than fix the rate of duty on certain licences. If the Legishture hereafter deems it expedient to require the personer designated to take out licences, an ordinance will be requisite. When that is done, the licences will have to be on the stamps now fixed. But until such legisla tive provision has been made, the present ordinance, in so far as it relates to licences, will not take effect; for at present there is no penalty for exercising any such calling without a licence, and of course no licence will be taken.

The suggestion of the sub-Committee was adopted, and in the ordinance, as passed, the licences objected to were struck out; the fire-arms licence was retained, because the ordinance requiring such a licenco had passed already.

Mr. Wodehouse was questioned as to these new tax ordinances.

The question of comparative accuracy between him and Sir E. Tennent turns so much upon detail, that an abstract of the evidence would be insufficient.