VAN DIEMEN'S LAND. (Hansard, 2 March 1842)

§ Mr. Murphy
begged to call the attention of the House to a circumstance connected with the measure before the House, of which he had been informed by a constituent. The gentleman alluded to had carried on business in Van Diemen's Land as a distiller before a proclamation of Sir G. Arthur was issued, which levied certain duties upon the article which he manufactured, and had ruined his business. It was, however, since understood, that these duties were laid on by a party having no authority to levy them or to levy any such duties. His constituent in consequence had raised an action against Sir G. Arthur for damages, and he (Mr. Murphy) wished to know whether it were the intention of Government that the bill which they were now to introduce, upon subjects connected with that to which he was alluding, would contain a clause having a retrospective effect in legalising the proceedings of the governor of the colony, and thus cutting off the legal means of redress open to his constituent, for what at the time of its exaction was undoubtedly an unauthorised exaction. He thought it hard that the Governor of Van Diemen's Land should be indemnified, while the gentleman for whom he asked the question was left without any such relief. He trusted, however, that the bill in question would contain a clause giving the required compensation.

Lord Stanley
thought that the person alluded to by the hon. Gentleman had no claim to object to the passing of the bill which Government had introduced. He had no doubt but that that person was a respectable individual; but the hon. Gentleman opposite had not had the opportunity of seeing the voluminous correspondence in which he had been engaged with reference to the matter, and had, therefore, no such complete knowledge of the case as he had. The claim of this person, Mr. Hackett, was that which led to the discovery of the flaw in the power of the governor to levy the taxes alluded to. Mr. Hackett had received compensation, but 1372 was not satisfied with the amount; and it was on that question that he had entered into the voluminous correspondence referred to. The bill introduced by Government was founded on the following circumstances: It appeared that, previous to the year 1829, the duties were levied in Van Diemen's Land by proclamation. In 1829, an act was passed for levying the duties by order of the Governor and Council. Up to 1834 all the duties continued to be levied, without considering the illegality of the proceeding, on proclamation by the governor, instead of by the Governor and Council. In 1834, the irregularity was discovered, and an act of the Governor and Council passed to give validity to duties claimed under the irregular order. Doubts were, however, thrown upon the power of the council of Van Diemen's Land to remedy the irregularities under which the duties had been collected from 1829 to 1834; and it was under these circumstances that Parliament was called open to interfere and legalise the proceedings of the council of Van Diemen's Land.

§ Mr. Murphy
was quite satisfied with the noble Lord's explanation, and rejoiced that he should have elicited so clear a statement on the part of the Government.

§ Mr. Wakley:
If the fact was that no proceedings had been instituted of late years, he did not see why indemnity should be granted. It may have been that a higher amount of duties was levied than the officers were justified imposing, and if that were so, it was hard that the parties resisting them should be refused costs.

Lord Stanley:
There was no doubt about what occurred since 1834. This measure was merely to give validity to acts previous to that year.