CO882-(1-2) — Page 149

PUBLIC RECORD OFFICE

Reference :-

TELEC.O. 882

ساسا سياسيا

1

PUBLIC RECORD OFFICE, LONDON

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

28

when they were brought in in detail, except the ordinance for taxing shops and dogs -Yes, and the fire-arms also.

4541. Am I right in supposing that when they were divided into separate ordinances, the only two which you objected to were the dog ordinance and the shop ordi- nance?—Yes; others had been given up which were in the original stamp ordinance, which never came forward again. 4542. The question applies to the ordinances as they were enacted and sent home; the only two of those ordi- nances which you objected to were the shop ordinance and the dog ordinance ?—Yes.

4543. The others had your approval?-I must be allowed to say that in the discussion of a series of mea- sures brought forward simultaneously, one member of a Government inclined generally to dissent generally from their introduction, must confine his opposition to those most objectionable. I did not offer opposition to the ordinance as to fire-arms; but there were other propo- sitions objectionable, and I confined myself chiefly to those.

Mr. Hume then asks as to the repeal of the shop-tax.

4555. Did you concur, or was the matter submitted to the Executive Council when Lord Torrington repealed it? -I quite concurred in the policy of repealing it. I was not a member of the Executive Council then, but I know that it was submitted to them.

4557. Was the repeal carried after the disturbances had taken place?—Yes, long after.

4558. Was the enactment before the disturbances took place? Yes.

4559. You do not know what effect the excitement may have had in creating dissatisfaction among certain classes who were likely to be opposed to it-It could directly have had nothing to do with the disturbances, because no disturbances took place in the towns to which it applied.

4576. Mr. Hawes.-Did anything pass to justify its being said to have been a measure which was forced through the Council ?—Not to my knowledge.

4577. Mr. Hume.-Did not you say that it passed through the Council after very long discussion ?-What I stated was, that all these measures of finance generally were subject to long discussion; I did not refer to this particular tax.

Sir E. Tennent is examined on several occasions as to these taxes, and it will be found that there is more than one difference between him and Mr. Wodehouse on matters of fact. Sir E. Tennent does not recollect the exact date when the shop and dog-tax were repealed; "but the announcement that the taxes would be repealed was made on the first day of the meeting of the Legislative Council.”

4158. Was there a Committee upon the proposition to impose the shop-tax ?—There was a Committee, to whom I think the entire ordinance was referred, of which the shop-tax formed one of the provisions; and if I am not mistaken, the subject was originally introduced to the Council in the stamp ordinance, which regulated the licence of other articles, and among them the tax upon shops naturally came under the consideration of the Committee.

4159. That was afterwards made the subject of a spe- cial ordinance?—It was.

Wodehouse.

June 19, 1849.

Tennent.

-

April 29, 1850.

3620.

May 10, 1850.

Tennent.

May 10, 1850.

May 13, 1850.

29

4160. Was that ordinance referred to a Committee of the Legislative Council ?—It was.

4161. Who constituted that Committee?—The Colonial Secretary; the Queen's Advocate, Mr. Selby; the Audi- tor-General, Mr. Wodehouse; the Acting Government Agent of Colombo, Mr. Gibson; Mr. Stewart, an unoffi- cial member of the Council; and two English gentlemen, likewise members of the Council, Mr. Crabbe and Mr. Armitage.

4162. Did that Committee concur in the recommenda- tion that such a tax should be imposed?-They did, with the exception of Mr. Wodehouse and Mr. Gibson.

4163. Did their objection take any shape or form which will enable you to lay it before the Committee }---The principal objection taken by them was one which I con- sider utterly untenable; they contended that the retail shopkeepers whom it was proposed to tax were already taxed, inasmuch as they paid the whole export duty upon the articles which they sold; I considered the fallacy of that was so obvious that it did not really form any objec- tion to the shop-tax.

4209. Mr. Wilson.—(After referring Sir E. Tennent to Mr. Wodehouse's answer 4499 (1849). Is that a correct representation, as far as your opinion goes, of Mr. Wode- house's opinion at the time? That anawer, coupled with other answers of Mr. Wodehouse, would convey the im- pression that Mr. Wodehouse was opposed to the prin- ciple of the dog-tax. Such was not the fact. Mr. Wode- house's objection was merely to the shape in which that tax was originally proposed to he levied when it was brought forward in the first instance; but in the Executive Council it was amended at Mr. Wodehouse's own sugges- tion, and in its amended shape be did not oppose it. As to the principle of the tax upon dogs, I find in the year 1841 it was brought before the Legislative Council, and adopted by a resolution to that effect recorded in the minutes, to which the name of Mr. Wodehouse is appended.

This is put rather too pointedly. On the 16th October, 1841, the treasury being then very low, the Governor addresses the Legislative Council on the "apprehended defalcation," and proposes certain new taxes; a dog-tax does not appear among them, but may perhaps have been suggested on some previous occasion. The Governor then leaves the Council, and the Council resolves itself into Com- mittee to consider his speech. The Colonial Secre- tary moves that the Committee concur with the Governor's suggestions; then follow the words, "a tax upon dogs they consider desirable, as a valuable measure of police. The motion having been se conded by the Acting Treasurer, it is resolved accordingly."

Neither Mr. Wodehouse's name nor any other name is appended to this resolution. Mr. Wode- house's name appears in the list of members pre- sent, which, as usual, is made the heading of the minutes of the day, and his name does not appear elsewhere.

4210. In what manner is it recorded --In the proooed-