it was introduced apologetically to meet an emergency,
and even then it was so modelled by exceptions that it
could not fall upon the mass of the community. Still
it was with difficulty it was passed—with greater
difficulty renewed—and at length it became so odious
that it was with immense difficulty renewed even for a
single year, and then upon conditions somewhat hard.
One of the great objections to the tax on property and
income was that there was no difference in the rate of
assessment upon incomes of a permanent and of a
temporary character. The committee had received evidence
from scientific persons as to the most desirable means of
equalising the burdens; but he must say, practically
speaking, that if those gentlemen's plans should be
adopted, schedule A, schedule B, and schedule C would
become no less odious than schedule D. There was one
point on which all were agreed, and that was, if they
were to resort to a system of direct taxation they should
not rest it upon a large foundation of exemptions. Direct
taxation must be as general, as universal as indirect
taxation, or it would be glaringly unjust, amounting in
principle to a system of confiscation. During the last
session of parliament direct taxation had been repealed
to the extent of nearly £2,000,000 by the abolition of the
window tax; but they found themselves obliged to
impose a tax on houses to make up a portion of the
deficiency. This house tax, however, was beset by the
same evil as pervaded all other direct taxes, for it was
based upon so large a system of exemption that, out of
three millions and a half of houses, only four
hundred thousand were subjected to the tax. He now
called the attention of the house to the income and
expenditure for the year. The estimate for the year
just closed was £52,140,000, but the actual result was
£52,468,317, although very considerable reductions of
taxation had taken place. After deducting the expenditure,
there would remain a surplus of £2,176,998. The
estimated expenditure for the ensuing year, for which
he scarcely held himself responsible, was £51,163,979.
And now he came to consider the sources from which
that expenditure was to be supplied. The right hon.
gentleman here enlarged upon the extraordinary manner
in which the revenue had maintained itself, notwithstanding
the enormous reductions which had been made
in the sugar, timber, and other duties, and which he
thought justified him in the following estimate for the
year ending the 5th of April, 1853:—

On Monday, May 3rd, Sir J. PAKINGTON moved for
leave to bring in a bill to grant a Representative
Constitution to the Colony of New Zealand. He gave a
brief outline of the history of the colony, and the
circumstances which led to the suspension (which
would cease in March, 1853) of the constitution of
1846. He dwelt upon the progress and growing
importance of the colony, observing that there was
every reason why the colonists should now be intrusted
with the privilege of self-government. Difficulties
however, presented themselves which distinguished
this colony from almost every other dependency of the
crown, in its geographical peculiarities, the mode in
which it had been settled in detached communities,
the very high intellectual grade of the natives, and
their extraordinary advance in civilisation. Upon this
last point Sir John read from the despatches of Sir G.
Grey some remarkable extracts, and he then explained
the scheme of the constitution proposed by the present
government, pointing out, as he proceeded, wherein it
differed from that designed by Earl Grey. It was their
opinion that New Zealand should be considered as one
colony, and that it should be divided into seven provinces,
each governed by a superintendent, appointed by the
governor-in-chief with a salary of £500 a year, each
superintendent to have a legislative council of not fewer
than nine members, to be entirely elective, the franchise
of the electors (natives not being excluded) to be as
follows:—a freehold worth £50, or a house, if in a town,
worth £10 a year, if in the country £5 a year, or lease-
hold property, with an unexpired term of three years,
worth £10 a year. The question whether members of
these provincial councils should be paid was left to the
central legislature. The duration of these councils it
was proposed to limit to four years. The central
legislature would consist of the governor-in-chief, as
head, and of two chambers. In the scheme of Lord Grey
the upper chamber was to be a representative body;
but there was no precedent in any colony for an elective
upper chamber, and the present government recommended
that the members of the upper chamber of the
central legislature should be appointed by the crown
during pleasure. The lower chamber was to be elective,
the franchise for the constituency the same as that for
the provincial councils. The number of members for
the upper chamber of the central legislature was to be
not less than ten nor more than fifteen, at the discretion
of the governor-in-chief; that of the lower chamber
not less than twenty-five nor more than forty. Five
years was intended to be the duration of the central
parliament, the acts of which would override those of
the provincial legislatures. It was proposed that there
should be a civil list; that £12,000 a year should be
retained, out of which the salaries of the superintendents
should be paid, and that £7000 a year should be reserved
for native purposes. All arrangements respecting the
town lands to be in the hands of the general legislature.
It could not be expected, he observed, that such a
measure as this could be final, and changes would be
introduced into the bill whereby the local legislature
should have full power, from time to time, to enact
changes in the constitution with the consent of the
crown. It was for the house to decide whether this
bill came within the category of "necessary measures;"
he believed it did; but if the house was of a different
opinion, the alternative was, it being highly inexpedient
to allow the act of 1846 to revive, to suspend that
constitution for another year.—Sir R. INGLIS suggested
certain questions, and was of opinion that this was not
quite one of the "necessary measures."—Mr. GLADSTONE
had not the slightest hesitation in considering that the
measure embodied most valuable principles, and believed
it would be hailed with gratitude by the colonists.—
Mr. V. Smith, Mr. Hume, Sir W. Molesworth, and other
members made cursory remarks upon the measure,
which Lord J. RUSSELL trusted would not meet with
any considerable opposition, being willing himself to
give it every assistance.—After a few words of reply and