he appropriation of
the public revenue. This he had been advised was an interference with
the royal prerogative! The friendly tone of his refusal restrained the
wrath it was calculated to excite. It is quite impossible to suppose any
branch of politics more clearly within the sphere of popular
remonstrance than the expenditure of the public money (August, 1845).

Mr. Bicheno, the colonial secretary, who, like the governor, might have
been popular in quiet times, was little qualified for a stormy debate.
He announced the most arbitrary notions in the blandest tones, and
asserted that the doctrine of concurrent representation and taxation was
a wild revolutionary idea, exploded by American independence. The
revenues he called the Queen's, and thought it monstrous that any should
dispute her right to her own. Though he compared the parent country to
the hen and the colonies to chickens, he could see nothing to disturb
the analogy in a demand for fresh contributions. He asserted that all
constitutional history showed that it was the prerogative of the crown
to tax the people, and instanced the Cape--a conquered province--as an
example. He affirmed that customs were not taxes, as the public were not
compelled to use the articles on which they were levied. The prosperity
of communities he asserted rose with the increase of taxation; that the
placards posted over the town were a complete delusion. Taxation and
representation--a cry first introduced by Lord Chatham, was, he said,
never adopted by the liberal whigs (August, 1845). Such un-English
notions were no assistance to the cause of the executive, and were
distasteful to all who pretended to value constitutional government.

The _ad valorem_ duties, raised to 15 per cent., for some time produced
less than they realised at five. The licensing scheme being rejected,
nothing remained but to reduce the expenditure or increase the debt. To
relieve the revenue and employ the convicts the executive proposed a
road act, and another for lighting and paving Hobart Town. The great
objection to these measures was their design to evade the question at
issue between the home government and the colony;--with many more odious
still as recognising a right in a crown appointed legislature either
directly or indirectly to tax the people. Mr. Gregson stated early in
the session that he would not levy a shilling additional until the
burdens of police were equitably adjusted. Supported by Capta