§ SIR W. MOLESWORTHsaid, he wished to repeat the question which he had put to the hon. and learned Gentleman the Attorney General a short time previously, of which ample notice had been given, and to which he thought the hon. and learned Gentleman ought to have distinctly answered. The question he had put then, and repeated now, amounted to this: whether the persons appointed by Her Majesty to make laws for the colony of Western Australia can at present legally levy taxes on the inhabitants or property of that colony?
The ATTORNEY GENERALsaid, the hon. Baronet had certainly given notice to the hon. Under Secretary for the Colonies that he meant to put some questions, but whether the question as now put was one of them, he (the Attorney General) knew not. But of this question he had not had ample notice. The hon. Baronet seemed to think that it ought to have been answered distinctly and at once; but it was doubtful whether he (the Attorney General) was bound in all cases to answer on points of law, and without being afforded time for reference. He should have answered it last night, but that it had been repeated in a form which led him to believe there was more in it than might have been at first supposed. He had now again considered the question, and he would give it a short answer. He was of opinion that the persons appointed by Her Majesty to make laws for the colony of Western Australia could at present legally levy taxes on the inhabitants or property of that colony.
§ SIR W. MOLESWORTHsaid, that he had given ample notice of his question to the hon. Under Secretary for the Colonies, and that hon. Gentleman had desired him to put it to the hon. and learned Attorney General. He now wished to ask whether the hon. and learned Gentleman was of opinion that, under the Act relative to Western Australia which had expired. Parliament had vested in the Crown the permanent power of legislating and of levying taxes, of which the Crown could not be deprived without consent.
The ATTORNEY GENERALsaid, 358 the question must be put in writing before he answered it.
§ MR. ADDERLEYdesired to call the attention of the hon. and learned Gentleman to the portion of the Act in question referring to the continuance of that statute. If it expired, what was to be the state of the law? Its continuance and its expiration were matters clearly contemplated by the framers of the Act, and he wished to know how the hon. and learned Gentleman reconciled the words regarding its continuance with the opinion that he had just pronounced?
The ATTORNEY GENERALsaid, that this question also must be reduced to writing before he answered it. He did not conceive himself bound to reply at once to every query that might be asked touching Acts of Parliament.
§ Subject dropped.