The Sun. — London, England, 1842-04-27 00:00:00

If the Committee had reason to believe that the question might lead,to painful disclosures, the House would allow them to decide accordingly, and he was sure that they would do justice to all the parties. Mr. ROEBUCK said, he wished to know whether or not a witness before a Committee of the House of Commons was to be placed in a different situation from that in which he would be placed before any other tribunal in the kingdom?—(Hear, hear.) If he were before the Court of Queen's Bench, and a man were to ask him if he had committed a murder. what would be his answer ? If he were guilty, he would say, " I don't intend to criminate myself," and the Court would say the question was an improper one, because of its tendency to criminate the witness.—(Hear, hear. hear.) Now he wanted to know if, when an Hen. §Member or any man in this kingdom were to be brought before a Committee of the House he was to be asked a question which might tend to cri minate himself, and be forced to answer it, upon pain of imprisonment—as a lawyer he desired to hear from lawyers an answer to that question. lie did not want to make the question a party one, He wanted to strip it of all that. He was glad it was on the other side of the House. He wanted to know from those who were of that honourable profession on both sides of the House, whether any one would he bold enough to say, that it was the law of England, acknowledged by her Judges, expounded by those who had hitherto been above all imputation—he wanted to know, whether by the law, that a man coming before any tribunal in this kingdom was bound to answer a question which tended to criminate himself ?—(Cheers.) The ATTORNEY-GENERAL—No. Mr.l OEBUCK.—No. He knew the Attorney-General would say, No. Now came his ( Mr. Roebuck's) application. How was this House to determine whether any private gentle man was compelled to answer a question, unless the House knew whether it criminated him, and how were the House to knew it? They coald not knew it until they knew what the question was, He for one protested against being compelled to vote blindly in such a matter. He wanted therefore to know what this question was.—( Hear, hear.) Mr. O'CONNELL said, that the Learned Gentle Man had asked a question very emphatically, which had nothing, to do with the matter. The Hon. Gentleman (Mr. Fleming) did not say that giving an answer to this question would criminate him. He said directly the reverse. Suppose this was an action in the Court of Queen's Bench, and the witness, instead of saying his answer would tend to criminate himself, but as in this case, that he was unwilling to answer through motives of delicacy, though those motives were very great, he appealed to the House, would the Court of Queen's Bench hesitate one moment ?_( Hear, hear.) No. They would say "We are very sorry to trespass on your feelings, but you must answer the question." There frequently were cases when parties had strong reasons to refuse to answer questions, but motives of delicacy alone were not sufficient to allow witnesses to withhold their evidence. The case of Lord Carrington , for example, was one of private conversation with a lady.— ( Hear, hear.) Questions have frequently been put to medical gentlemen of the first experience, which they would not answer for any quantity of property that could be given to them—but they have been compelled to reveal the circumstance by the Court. Everything the law required the Hon. Gentleman to tell, he must tell. Did he know that by refusing to answer this question, he was violating his oath?—( Hear, hear.) He (Mr. O'Connell) did not know the Hon. Gentleman, but he believed he was quite incapable of violating an oath, but still unintentionally, no doubt, he was doing so, by standing, between the tribunal and the fact it sought to ascer tain.—( Hear, hear.) If the tribunal had not de cided aright, they would have an opportunity of re considering the question when the Honourable Member came before them, and there could be no apprehension that they would enforce any violation of confidence, unless it were ab solutely necessary to the merits of the case. The Honourable Member for Bath (Mr. Roebuck) had raised a question that was not now in discussion. It could not be doubted that the Hon. Gentleman ( Mr. Fleming) was bound to answer. Sir R. H. INGLIS objected to the sweeping doctrine laid down by the Attorney-General that every witness was com pellable to answer every question. It should have been quali fied by the relevancy of the question, and further by the con fidence between a professional agent and his principal. He (Sir R. H. Inglis) objected to the introduction in the House of the particular question put in the Committee. They were to consider not whether the question was relevant or not, or im portant or not, but whether the party questioned had refused to answer. If an Election Committee were not a fit tribunal to decide on questions of election taw, that House was im measureably less fit to do so. He ( Sir R. H. Inglis) re tained the opinions on this subject that he had expressed yes terday, narrelv, that the party should be sent back to the Com mittee and answer such questionsas were put to him—in fact, that the party should submit himself to the Committee. That was all they had a right to require from the Hon. Illember for Hampshire, and if he objected to the questions put to him on the ground of irrelevancy, let the Committee decide the matter. Mr. FORBES wished to ask what course the Committee should pursue if Mr. Fleming should decline to answer their question ?—( " Question," and " Spoke.") The question was then put, and the Ayes had it. Mr. Fleming was now ordered to attend in his place forthwith and haring appeared accordingly, The SPEAKER, addressing the Hon. Member, said he (the Speaker) should best discharge his duty by reading the resolution that the House had just agreed to, which was that John Fleming, Esq., having declined to answer a question put to him by a legal tribunal, be now informed him that any ob jection which he might have to answering them should be sub mitted to the Committee and determined on by them. Mr. FLEMING bowed and took his seat with a sang jived that provoked general laughter. IPSWICH ELECTION—CASE OF LUCAS. On the Order of the Day for the attendance of Henry Fisk, Elizabeth Ann Cullen, and the Surgeon of Newgate at the bar of the House being read, The SPEAKER directed Elizabeth Ann Cullen should be called in. Elizabeth Ann Cullen then came to the bar, and was exa mined as follows : The SPEAKER—Is your name Elizabeth Ann Cullen?— It is. Are you the sister of Obadiah Barwick Lucas ?—I am. Examined by Mr. PAKINGTON—Did Obadiah Bar wick Lucas reside with you in Bond-street, Ipswich, in the month of April, 1837 ? yes. Do you recollect any conversation taking place during that month between your brother and a man named George Scho berg ?—Yes. Do you recollect that the day subsequent to that conversation George Schoberg committed suicide ?—Yes. State to the [louse what was the effect which the suicide of Schoberg produced on the mind of your brother. —The effect produced upon my brother's mind was such that we were afraid to leave him alone. Were you in the habit of seeing your brother since 1837 ? —Yes. Has his mind recovered from the shock of that excitement ? —Never. Has he b?en, since that time, in a state of nervous excite ment ?—Yes. Do you consider his memory was impaired?—l do. Did you see your brother on the evening p-eceding his ex amination before the Election Committee ?—I did. In what state of mind was he then ?—He was exceedingly excited. Did you see him since his commitment to Newgate ?. In what state did you find him ?—ln the same state. The witness was then ordered to withdraw. The Surgeon of Newg-ate next appeared at the Bar, and, in replyto a question from the SPEAKER, said that he had known Lucas since the time of his confinement in Newgate. He had seen Lucas that day. He had seen him professionally. Lucas was out of health. He considered the man was in a gloomy state of mind. In answer to a further question from Mr. PAKINGTON, the witness stated that he had particularly directed his atten tion to the state of mini of Lucas within the last day or two. The man appeared to witness to be labouring under great nervous excitement. Witness considered it quite possible that the state of nervous excitement under which the man laboured, might so have affeet9d his mind as to render it probabl, that he could not give c irrect ovid..nce with respect to a transaction in which he had taken part nine or ten months ago. The witness was then ordered to withdraw. Mr. PAKINGTON then rose and said, that he did not know whether the conclusion to which he hasl come, from the evidence just given, might be the same as that. at which the House had arrived. Ile hoped, however, that it would not ap pear to those Hon. Gentlemen with whom he had the pleasure of acting in the Committee, that he was going to pursue a eourse at all inconsistent with the step which they had taken in ordering the commitment of Lucas to Newgate for the false evidence which he had given ; and that it would not be sup posed by the House that he was at all deviating from the opi nion he had expressed on a farmer occasion, that Committees were bound to resort to the powers which they possessed, when he expressed his opinion, that the statements which had been male at the Bar, raised a strung presumption that the false answers which Lucas had given them, were, in a great degree, occasioned by his infirmity. The Hon. Gentleman accordingly moved, that Obadiah Barwick Lucas be discharged from her Majesty's gaol of Newgate. Mr. PARKER thought that the end which the House had had in view in showing its determination to cause the autho rity of the Committees to be respected, and their questions to be answered truly, had been attained, and he supported the motion. Mr.O'CONNELL doubted that the man ought to have been committed at all. Upon reading the evidence, it seemed very probable that his contradictions were occasioned by fatuity— ( Hear, hear)—and that no Jury would convict him of wilful perjury. —(Hear, hear.) After what the House had heard, there scarcely could be any opposition to his discharge. Mr. DARBY als.) concurred in the motion for discharging the prisoner. Sir C. B. VERE read a certificate from a surgeon attend ing Lucas, stating that he was labouring under strong nervous excitement. After a few words from Mr. PAKINGTON, the question was put and carried. NOTICES OF MOTIONS. Mr. J. O'CONNELL gave notice that he would, on Thurs day, the 10,h of May, c.ll the attention of the House to the state of Roman Catholics in the army and navy (as we under stood) '—Yes. TEXAS, . Mr. O'CONNELL wished to put a question to the Right Hon. Baronet at the head of her Majesty's Government with respect to Texas. He wished to know whether the treaties between this country and Texas had been ratified ? Sir R. PEEL said, that three treaties had been drawn up between this country and Texas. The one was for the giving facliities to commerce, the other was for the abolition of slavery, and the otherwas forgranting certain loans from Texas to Mexico. Those treaties tt was provided were to be ratified simul taneously, and the day fixed for that ratification was the Ist of August. Since th e lion. Gentleman, gave notice of the ques tion, information had been received from Texas that no ratifi cation had taken place, but that the commercial treaty was ready for ratification, that the Senwe of Texas had agreed to ratify the treaty f n. the suppressio n of the slave trade, and he Irlieved also that the other treaty was ready for signature. He believed that all the treaties would he ratified in a very short time. , coNNE',I.L said that th e other question he wished Mr. 0 to put to 'he Right fien. Baronet was relative to the conduct of the British itlinister at f • Mex i t e . He understood that a a ' proposition ha. 4 been made l J o c o m o f m e cs T i e n x g p iar e i to ce , certain Mexicansums sholld pass between Governmentnt that, on ci.iric thpfn, and that a further sum should be had been informed th a t t h e iven as a bribe to Saldinha , li e ., mo was a party t o t h at tranne Minister of this country in Con, inasmuch as he had actually conveyed the letters contain_ ' ing the proposal. Now he ( Mr. O Connell) wished to k now whether that was true or not. Sir it. PEEL was sorry that the Right Horn. and Lear ne d Gentleman had not given notice of his intention to put the question, because in cases of such importance, relating to parts of the world so distant from this country, he was anxious to be as accurate as possible, 'out it. did so happen that he recol lected having read a despatch from the British Minister in Mexico giving an account of the transaction. He declared that he was requested by a party he need not name, to deliver a letter ,to the Mexican authorities, having every reason to be lieve that it related to other subjects. The letter he believed was written in English. but the Minister was perfectly unaware of its contents, and when he was told what it did contain, he immediately wrote to the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, expressing his regret that he should have been un conscioush made the instrument of conveying any such pro posal. The English Minister at Mexico was as perfectly free from blame in the affair as he was himself.—( Hear, hear. ) Had he been aware of the contents of the letter, he would. never have been the means of conveying it. TRADE WITH TURKEY. Dr. BOWRING asked if the Right Hon. Baronet could state when the correspondence relative to the commercial treaty brtween this country and the Ottoman Porte would be ready for presentation to the House ? sir R. PEEL said that he would make inquiries on the snbject. _ _ SLAVE TRADE. Captain PECHELL moved for a return of various detail.; connected with the Slave-trade, and slave vessels seized and condemned by the Mixed Commission Courts. POOR-LAWS. Captain PECHELL also gave notice that on the 10th of May he should move for a return of the number and names of all persons punished for offences in the union poor houses. NEW POOR-LAW. Sir J. GRAHAM gave notice that on Thursday, the sth of May, he would move for leave to bring in a Bill to continue the Poor-law Commission for a time, to be limited. CATHOLIC SOLDIERS IN INDIA. Mr. O'CONNELL, in rising to move fur a Select Committee to consider and report upon the state of spiritual destitution of the Catholic soldiers serving in India and China, said that this was a subject of the greatest importance, and that it excited the attention of soldiers and officers in the army, and of persons in the highest rank in society. He should confine his motion to the state of the Catholic soldiers serving in India and China, with reference to their religious instruction. He did not wish to include any thing that related to the state of the army in other parts of the Empire. Out of the sum of 11,0001. dedi cated to the instruction of the British army, no part of it had been laid out in India ; but the whole of it was confined to other parts of the British empire, and, he was sorry to say, that there was only 790/. laid out for the instruction of Ca tholic soldiers. But with that at present he had nothing to do. His motion related to those only in India and Chine. With respect to the army in China, he (Mr. O'Connell) had his information from a gentleman, whose name he was ready to communicate. He did not see any reason for withholding it. It was the Hon. Captain Jerningham. The Catholic soldiery had to meet the same dangers as their comrades—they had to encounter the same effects of climate, and they displayed the same gallantry in the field. The ex cellent gentleman to whom he had referred would be ready, if a Committee were granted, to give an account of the heart rending sufferings of those Catholic soldiers especially who died of sickness. He would at the same time bear testimony to the humanity of the Protestant chaplains, who had behaved with the greatest delicacy, in not obtruding themselves where their spiritual services could not be accepted, but who did every thing in their power to alleviate the temporal wants of the un fortunate Catholic soldiery. The only subject of regret was that those Catholics were deprived of spiritual assistance of a kind similar to that which was extended to the Protestant sol diery. He could show the House a ease of most complete des titution in that respect. He had been totally misinformed, if the feet were not that no Catholic clergyman had attended the troops to China. It should also be remembered that the attend ance of a clergyman was considered of infinitely more importance by Catholics in their last moments than by members of any other persuasion. A Catholic clergyman had to administer she last sacrament; and he (Mr. O'Connell) was sure, that every Member of that House would be anxious that Catholic soldiers should not be deprived of such consolation. In India the troops were scattered at such a distance from each other, that few of the Catholics had the benefit of the attendance of a clergyman of their own persuasion. He would read a letter he had received from a Catholic clergyman in Calcutta, dated the 19th February last, upon that subject. The following is an extraest from the letter :—" You have heard of the sad fate of Lieut. Sturt, the son-in-law of General Sale. If his advice had been taken, we should have had a better result. When Sturt was wounded, our native soldiers gave themselves up to be butchered. Not so the 44th Regiment, most of whom were Irish. These poor fellows, though reduced in the last degree by hunger and cold, never abandoned Stu: t while he had life in him. When he was too weak to walk, they mounted him on a pony, and supported him as long as they could. Not one of these poor fellows has escaped. I wish they had had a priest near them ! Our friends in India have taken this matter up ; but nothing can be looked for until some measure is originated at home, for every answer given to our applications by the Indian Govern ment, has been mere evasion." Now much dependence had been placed on a sort of pledge made by a Member of the late Government on the subject, while the question of the East India Charter was under discussion before, and on the occasion of an interview between several Catholic Members and the then Mr. Grant (now Lord Glenelg), who was accompanied by Mr. Gordon. The deputation were given to understand that by not bringing the matter before Parliament while the question was in agitation, the Government would be induced to supply re medies for the grievances they complained of. He (Mr. O'Connell) had repeatedly urged this species of pledge on the late Government, and had been promised from time to time that something efficient would be done. But he was sorry to say that nothing had been done ; and the parties on whose be half they had applied, remained in the same state of spiritual destitution they were in at the time of the interview. When he asked the Right Hon. Baronet and Gallant Officer the Secretary at War whether anything was in contemplation in this matter by the present Government, he was pleased to re fer him to a Parliamentary paper laid on the table of the House on the motion of Lord Ashley, on the 2d of March, 1839. [ Sir 11. Hardinge made some remark.] He (Mr. O'Connell) really thought there was something like a want of courtesy on the part of the Right Hon. Baronet ; but now he said that the Right Hon. Baronet had mistaken his question, which was whether it was in the contemplation of the Government to do anything in this matter. He (Mr. O'Connell) was then actuated by those motives, whether the House would give him credit for them or not, that the augmentation of the army of India from Ireland would be much facilitated if the population of that country were made sure that some redress in this matter was hkely to be granted. The letters from the Catholic soldiers in India had made a wider impression thaa the Right Hon. and Gallant Baronet was aware. They had been communicated to the clergy, and they had made a strong impression against joining the Indian army from Ireland. Well, the document referred to by the Right Hon. Baronet stated that in the Presidency of Madras there were nineteen Protestant and Presbyterian stations, in only twelve of which the Catholic soldiers had any opportunities of spiritual assist ance. For the maintenance of the Protestant religion in the same Presidency 22,010/., fur the Presbyterian 2,080/., and for the Catholic only 2071. In Bombay there were twenty stations of the Protestant Church, and only seven of the Catholic Church. The minimum income of any Protestant clergyman was 9501. a-year, while, with the exception of one, no Catholic clergyman received more than 60/. a-year, ant that one Catholic clergyman received 741. a-year. In Bengal there were twenty-six Protestant stations, and only seven Catholic stations. The minimum income of any Protestant clergyman was 900/. a-year ; 1,8701. was the total sum divided among the Catholic clergymen. There were two Catholic clergymen with 250/. a-year each, and none of the others had more than 60/. a-year each. The Mar. quis of Hastings had recommended that the clergy of the Catholic soldiers should be attended to, and ha'l advo cated those claims in the strongest manner, and every succes sive Commander-in-Chief in India had done the same, down to Sir Henry Fane. Sir Henry Fane was the first who had re fused to concur in these representations, and when he was requested to do so he peremptorily refused. With regard to the 44th Regiment, which had so distinguished itself at Ghuz nee, there was a singular fact. The regiment had for some years before that period been stationed at Bhurtpore, where a subscription was set on foot to erect a Catholic chapel, to which the privates and sergeants subscribed 600/., no slight proof of their affection for their religion. The Catholic sol diers complained of these grievances —first, that from the asylum for the orphans of soldiers the Catholics derived scarcely any benefit. The general order of 1827 for establishing the asylum was calculated to bestow on them all the benefits they could desire, but since that time certain regulations had been made which materially interfered with their deriving that benefit from it to which they were entitled. The second was that they were compelled to send their children to the regimental schools, and if the officer was a man of harsh manners and a narrow mind, they were compelled to learn the Protestant Catechism, were taught out of Protestant books, and were prevented from learning the tenets of the Catholic religion. Some officers had behaved very harshly, but others, and among them Lieut.-Colonel M'Gregor, had given Catholic soldiers every opportunity of attending to their religious duties, not interfering in any way, or compelling them to learn any doctrine no t i n accor dance with that which they professed. But the matter depended upon the discretion of the commanding officer of each regi ment, and grievances of the most afflicting nature were said to have occurred in consequence. In all the stations in India, including those in that part of tile Burmese empire now in our possession, there were only sixteen or eighteen where the Catholic soldiers could get any species of religious assistance. By the report of Brigadier-General O'Halloran, General Sale, and other commanding officers, it appeared, that when soldiers had an opportunity of attending to their religious duties, there was a marked difference in their conduct from that of those who were separated from their clergymen. It was but neces sary to let the fact be known that one-third of the soldiers in India were Catholics, to give ground for his proposal that in every regiment where there was a reasonable number of sol diers, there should be a chaplain. The Catholic soldiers ought not to be left destitute of the means of spiritual conso lation ; and it should be recollected, that it was more im portant to the Catholic soldier to have a clergyman, than to the soldier of any Protestant persuasion. The Holy Scriptures and Christian officers might render a clergyman al most unnecessary to the Protestant soldier, but not to the Catholic.— (Hear.) He was not saying that a shilling too much was bestowed upon the Protestant chaplains, but all he asked was, whether the grievances he detailed were not of such a nature as to render it just that redress ought to be applied to them. He would not press his motion to a division it he got an assurance from the Government that they would take up the matter, and remedy th e ev il s , b u t if h e did no t hear that such was their i ntention, he should then press his motion, conscious that there was a scarcity of instruction for the Roman Catholic soldiers, and that they were not inferior to any of the troops in India. He should therefore move for a " Select Committee, to consider and report upon the state of spiritual destitution of the Catholic soldiers serving in India and China." The question having been put, Mr. BINGHAM BARING said he would not deny to the Catholic soldiers in India the praise they deserved, and he thought them entitled to as much consideration as the Pro testant soldiers.—( Hear, hear.) The principle on which the Government of India had acted was never to deny salaries to Roman Catholic chaplains appointed by competent authority within that country, and they had even increased the pay of chaplains with a view to encourage the ser vices of Europeans. In the province of Bengal the chaplain had 1.50/. a year, and the chaplain of Malacca bad 2501., and the rest, it was true, had a smaller salary; but the chaplains were paid in consideration of the services they ren dered, and in proportion to the number of persons whom they had to give spiritual instruction to. He did not think that was the proper time to enter into the consideration of the compa rison made by the Right Hon. and Learned Gentleman be tween the Protestant and Catholic chaplains. The Indian Govet nment had also subscribed for the repair of chapels, and suspended the customs laws, that the vestments for the cere monies might be more easily imported. They had also distri buted tracts and prayer books ; and with respect to the inter ference of officers to force Roman Catholic children to receive instructions from the regimental schools, the case was repre sented to the Governor-General, who referred it to the Coin mantier in-Chief, and no time was lost by him in issuing such instruction as would make it impossible for such conduct to occur again. He could assure the Right Honourable and Learned Gentleman that the spiritual wel fare of the troops was paid as much attention to as their bodily wants, and that where there was any real cause of com plaint, every means of redress was given them. AIL HUME, from what he knew of the Government. be lieved that any representation on the part of the Catholic soldiers would meet with attention from the Government. The Irish troops had always been ready to assist in supporting the honour of their country, and therefore it was that he agreed with the Right Hon. Gentleman who had just sat down, that the G overnment ought to look strictly their interest. H e hoped the complaint's that had been made would speedily be remedied. He would second his Right Hon. Friend in any course that he might think fit to pursue, to force the subject on the attention of Government. Sir H. HARDINGE was delighted at the temperate tone of the,Right Hon. Gentleman, in bringing forward this motion; at the same time, however, he was bound to say, whit regard to many of the complaints that had been made, that they were without foundation. In some places causes of com plaint might have occurred, but generally speaking, in all parts the officers were most anxious for the welfare of the men. Similar complaints had been made at the Military Asylum at. Chelsea. The Commissioners of that Institution met and de termined that the children of Catholics should not be required to learn the Church Catechism, but that they would be brought up to the religion of their father and mother. He was quite satisfied that the same principles pervaded the whole army. The Hon. Gent. had stated that the Protestant soldiers received that spiritual consolation of which the Catholics were deprived, but he feared that they were both placed in the same predica ment. During the Peninsular war in 1813, there were only ten chaplains in the whole army. In 1796, in consequence of the inconvenience which had resulted from it, the whole sys tem of chaplains of regiments was abolished. Subsequently to that period, the soldier had been invited and encouraged to attend the Church of his creed. The rule laid down was that because it was practicable for the soldier to be accom modated in the parish church he would there receive religious instruction ; and that where that advantage could not be obtained, a separate service should, under certain regulations, be appointed for his use. A sum in the army estimates was appropriated to that purpose. It appeared to him that that system was infinitely better than the system of regimental chaplains. lie did not see in what way they could alter the existing arrangement. A recurrence to the old system would be full of inconvenience. The greatest harmony and good feeling now prevailed in the different regiments; and if they had two clergymen of different creeds in each regiment he was confi dent that it would do the British army great disservice. Equally confident was he that it would not only be inconve nient but dangerous to the interests of the army to adopt such a system. He could not but approve of the manner in which the Hon. and Learned Gentleman had brought forward the subject ; but he trusted that, after the objection which had been stated, he would see that it was desirable not to persevere in his motion. Sir ROBERT INGLIS said he would not interrupt the harmony whtch appeared to prevail by any harsh observations. The House, however, was aware of his views or: this sulject. The principle for which the Hon. Gentleman had contended, if carried, to the full extent, would require the House to provide a chaplain for every form of religion pro fessed in the regiment ; and unless the House was prepared to establish the principle that an established form of religion should be provided for every sect in the country, he could not see how they could consistently accede to the motion of the Hon. and Learned Member. Mr. O'CONNELL said that he was aware he would not ad vance his cause by pressing it to a division, and he would there fore beg leave to withdraw his motion. The notice was then withdrawn. LEGACY DUTIES. Mr. LEADER presented a petition from a Com mittee appointed by the Vestry of St. Martin's, urging upon the Legislature the justice and necessity of subjecting landed property to the same probate and legacy duties, as those now imposed upon all other property liable to them ; that the exception of landed property was unjust. by reason of its par tiality ; that various duties would he found pressing exclusively upon personal property ; and praying the House to institute an inquiry into the truth of these statements, and to render justice by one equal imposition of probate and legacy duties upon fixed property of every description. Mr. ELPHINSTONE rose, pursuant to notice, to move— " That it will be expedient for this House, at an early period, to resolve itself into a Committee of the whole House, for the purpose of considering the Act 55 Geo. 111., c. 161, with the view of imposing legacy and probate duties on succession to real estates, of the same amount as are now imposed by the said Act on succession to personal property." He said he should endeavour, with the permission of the House, to point out the anomalies in the existing state of the law in this matter, and the estimated amount of revenue that might be ob tained if the House would agree to his proposition. He would previously, however, state how Mr. Pitt had treated the subject. In the year 1796, he introduced a Bill, the pur pose of which was to impose upon real property the probate duties which were imposed upon personal property. The Bill passed through various stages, in all of which it was supported with great eloquence and ability by that statesman. On the question, however, " that the Bill do pass," the numbers being equal, Mr. Pitt thought fit to withdraw the measure. There were three statutes referring to this subject, the 36th, the 43d, and the 55th of Geo. 111. The combined effect of this state of the law was, that if a man was possessed of personal or leasehold property, it was subject to a tax of 13 per cent. ; whereas, if it were freehold or copy hold property, it would pay no tax at all. The legacy and probate duties fell upon personal and landed property, and upon charges upon land itse.f. Now he asked, why was this ?—( Hear. hear.) What was the justice of such a law ?—( Hear, hear. ) He could not see on what ground the landowner was exempt from contributing to the burden's of the State.—( Hear.) He could not see why the man who invested his property in the funds, or why leaseholds should be subject to the tax, and copy holds not. Why was it that personal property paid the probate and legacy duty, and yet that reversionary property paid the probate and not the legacy duty? He had received many com munications on this subject, and amongst them a letter from a Gentleman in Warwickshire, near Leamington, who said that he had to pay a large amount of probate and legacy duty upon property which he had derived from his father, whilst at the same time the son-in-law of the late Duchess of Bucclench received under her will the estate called Beaulier, in the same county, worth 33,000/. without paying a shilling of probate or legacy duty, because the property was freehold.— ( Hear, hear.) The writer declared he did not see why his fa mily should be taxed on personal property, which was the pro duce of a life of hard labour, and their neighbours should pay no tax upon that which had cost the bequeathers nothing.— ( Hear, hear.) The Hon. Gentleman then went into numer ous statistical details, in which it was impossible, from his in distinct and rapid manner, to follow him with correctness arid accuracy. He argued, from the statements of Sir R. Peel, as to the income derived from the rent of land, that the duties which he proposed would yield one million and a quarter an nually. Thu Right Hon. Baronet had said that the taxes paid by land, in the way of stamp duties upon transfer and con veyance, amounted to 1,650,0001. But, on examination, he (Mr. E.) found that a great part of that sum was derived from transfers and conveyances which had nothing to do with land. The result of the inquiries he had made among the members of the legal profession, and among the law stationers, had been to convince him that of the 1.300,000/. paid annually as stamp duty on conveyances, not more than 4,000/. was paid by landed proprietors. The stamp duty conveyance was not in general paid by the large landed proprietors. It was paid by small proprietors residing in the neighbourhood of great towns, who had to dispose of small plots of ground fur the improvement of those towns. As a proof of this he would state, that, with the ex ception of one or two large proprietors, all the land in the county of Middlesex changed hands onee in fourteen years. He agreed in thinking that the stamp duty on conveyance was rather high, but it was not more unjust to the landed proprietor that the imposition of the receipt stamp was to the tradesman. The Right Hon. Gentleman had alluded to the duty on mort gages. Now, if ever there was a circumstance which went to show that in this country there was one law for the rich and another for the poor, it was this circumstance of the stamp duty on mortgages. If a poor man wished to raise 50/. by mortgage, he was compelled to pay a stamp duty of 1/. ; but if a rich landed proprietor wished to raise 10,000!. by mort gage, he only paid a duty of 121, instead of a duty of 2001., which ought to be his proportion, thereby occasioning a loss to the revenue of 1881. The Noble Lord the Secre. tary for the Colonies had alluded to the large stamp duties paid by the landed proprietors in making set tlements when their eldest sons came of age ; but the Noble Lord could never have investigated the relative amount of stamp duty paid upon settlements of real and personal pro perty. If on his eldest son coming of age a landed proprietor wished to make a settlement ce' real property to the amount of 20,0001., the stamp duty would be 8/. ; that was IL 15s. stamp duty, and as the deed would take up five or six skins, there would be an additional duty on each skin that would make it about Si. ; whereas, if he wished to make a settlement of 20,000/. funded property . he would have to pay a stamp duty of 311.5 s.—that was, 251. for the stamp, and 6/. 53. for the skins, as in the former instance, He would admit that some improvement might be made in the scale of probate duty, but at the same time he considered that in itself the probate duty was a fair tax ; it was a tax which could not be avoided, and to which all the property in the United Kingdom ought to be subjected. He would not trespass further on the House, but would leave his resolution in their hands to be dealt with as they might think proper. Sir. HUME seconded the motion. The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER, who spoke in so extremely a low tone of voice that we were frequently un able to hear him, said that the subject of the motion of the Hon. Gentleman had been brought forward at the time the amendments of the Noble Lord (Lord J. Russell) were before the House, and he (the Chancellor of the Exchequer) on that occasion stated to the House some of the reasons which in duced him to believe that it was impracticable to appl y t h e same legacy duty to landed property as personal property. The question proposed by the Hon. Gentleman was simply to im pose upon landed property a duty equal to that which was now imposed upon a succession to personal property. The Hon. Gentleman must be aware that his motion would only apply to real property not under settlement, for the Act which imposed probate duty merely applied to personal property, and that if the property were settled, then the individual would be exempt from the operation of the duty, for it was only on unsettled property that the probate duty could be paid at all. Therefore it was clear the Honourable Gentleman could only deal with unsettled property. He (the Chancellor of the Exchequer) was anxious to impress that on the House, because the increase to the revenue ex pected by the Honourable Gentleman would be extremely small. He (the Chancellor of the Exchequer) had taken the liberty of stating, on a former occasion, that the great bulk of the landed property of this country was under settlement, and if the law were altered, and probate and legacy imposed on real property, the great bulk of the landed property would be just as much exempt from the payment of duty as it was at the present moment. He had also stated that the great bulk of the unsettled landed property of this country was the property of small proprietors, persons who allowed their property to de scend from father to son, without, during their lives, putting themselves to the expense of a settlement. Therefore, if the motion of the Honourable Gentleman should be adopt ed, the effect would be to leave the bulk of the landed property of the country, viz., the rich and the higher orders, exempt from the payment of duty, but to impose upon the' small landed proprietors of the country the heavy burden of a probate and legacy duty. It was on this ground that he said the Hon. Gentleman would not realise the revenue he expected, but that he would be disappointed. The Hon. Gentleman it had alluded to the case of the Duchess of Buccleugh, whose property had descended to her son, the Hon. Mr. Scott ; but the Hon. Gentleman must consider that the property descended by settlement, and under the proposi tion of the Hon. Gentleman it would have escaped the duty altogether. The Hon. Gentleman had alluded to the stamp duty, and stated that it was extremely unequal in its opera tions. This he (the Chancellor of the Exchequer) did not intend to deny, and that amendment was necessary. He (the Chancellor of the Exchequer) had at one time attempted to introduce a general reform of the system of stamp duties, but great objections went taken on the part of Hon. Gentlemen who felt an interest in the subject. His successor had made a similar attempt, and laid a series of resolutions on the table of the House. for the purpose of introducing a remedy ; but he, like himself (the Chancellor of the Exchequer) was met by a boat of objections, and he was obliged to take shelter under a modification of the newspaper stamp duty. But he (the Chancellor of the Exchequer) was willing to give this subject his still further consideration. But the quality or in equality of the stamp duties did not materially bear upon the question then under the consideration of the House. The Hon. Gentleman had introduced this with reference to legacy and probate duty. The Hon. Gentleman must recollect that the Bill of 1796 appied to personal property alone. Mr. Pitt had proposed afterwards that real property should be sub- Jeet to the duty on all its changes, and these charges amounted to nearly as much as the legacy on personal property. The proportion of, duty paid on personal property accumulatedvpee woulds o t p i o n r g t t amokn money n o t e f h y the 10,0001.,ai example and other . prop er ty, was as one to one , an d the funds. e operty to personal was as sto 8. He and ds .a vestedp Nowe rs o person vesting e o s wo t le i n. would s o au n np e dp y ea i s inland and a a s n p d , e 0 ai n d . in the funds. Now, if he purchased land, he wdtild be sub ject to a considerable amount of charges from the Stamp-office. In the first place there would be the duty on the lease, via., the principal skin, for 5,0001., 551., and for the subsequent skin, 61. ; the duty for attested copies, 2/. 10s. ; and small charges of 1/. 155., making altogether about 65/. paid down at the time of vesting the money in land. Now take the instance of his vesting money in the funds. He went into the City, which merely cost him his carriage, and no other expense, and the THE SUN, LONDON, WEDNESDA MORNING, APR] L 27, 1842, money immediately became productive.. Supposing the indivi dual lived for 30 years— Mr. ELPHINS roNE made some observation which was inaudible in the Gallery. The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER—WeII then, suppose he lived fur twenty years, and at the end of the 20th year, and left his property to some person. What would be his position as to landed property ? He would have paid in the 20 years 651., and, added to this, would come the legacy duty, altogether amounting to about 1301. or 1401. paid upon the landed property, being more than double the amount of that upon the money vested in the funds. Therefore, he (the Chancellor of the Exchequer) felt himself bound to oppose the motion of a further tax of this nature upon lauded property. He found, from information he had received from persons able to make a calculation on the subject, that a great portion of the legacy ditty was paid on real property. But it was impossible to make an accurate statement, as they had to go over an immense massof papers to ascertain the pro bable amount, and it would take the whole of a large esta blishment to collect an accurate statement. From this calcula tion it appeared thatabout 1,700,000/.lwas paid for legacy duty; of that sum, 1,100,000/. was paid upon landed property, and 600,0001. upon personal property. Therefore the Hon. Gentleman would see that the duty paid by landed property very much ex ceeded that upon personal property. He did not know that there was any other point to which he could allude on that oc casion. As he had said before, he thought there was room for amendment in the stamp duties, but he could not see how the motion of the Honourable Gentleman, if carried, could benefit the revenue, inasmuch as the duty would fall on the small landed proprietors, who were a useful class of the community, and upon whom he (the Chancellor of the Exchequer) was not disposed to press with any undue measure of taxation. Mr. HUME said that if he were to decide the question upon the speech he certainly should do so in favour of the mo tion, as the Right Hon. Gentleman had made out a strong case us its favour. He had told them that there was a great inequality in the stamp duties, and that they pressed with undue severity on some classes. He had told them that if there was a settlement made it put out of the power of the Government to collect any legacy duty, as there was an Act of Parliament against it. Why, another Act of Parlia ment would overrule that.—( Hear, hear.) It was the bounden duty of her Majesty's Ministers, when passing an Income .tax, from the statement they had heard that night, to inquire as to the best means of taxing this property. He had received a letter from Devonport, which sated that the late Sir John St. Aubin had left property to the amount of 16,0001. a-year, and yet the writer of that letter had had to pay legacy duty on one house, while the successor of Sir J ohn ht. Aubin paid no duty whatever. In fact, 999 persons out of every 1,000 contributed to the duty, while only one rich man out of every thousand contributed. The Government ought not to complain of trouble in obtaining statements. The Stamp-office should be examined well to ob tain information. Mr. Pitt would never have stopped with such an excuse. Why should a rich man be exempt from paying a duty, and the poor man be obliged to submit to its imposition ? This, he said, was an instance of class legislation owing to the people not being represented in this House. Did the Eight lion. Baronet think that he was to go on and allow these unequal laws? Was he not now supporting and protecting the landed interest against the other interests of the country ? He ( Mr. Home) would admit that the Right Hon. Baronet was in a difficult position, that lie had hard task-masters over him, and could not do as he pleased.—( Hear, hear.) His Hon. Friend had alluded to the returns. Was it not scan dalous to think that there should be from 40,000,0001. to 42,000,0001. of personal property subject to five per cent. duty, whilst real property was exempt ? Look at the immense property of the Duke of Cleveland, the Marquis of Stafford, and the Duke of Devonshire's estates ; not one farthing of the duty did their land ever pay : the poor man, who occupied a small cottage would pay, but the great leviathans of landed property—(A laugh)—it was no laughing matter—to be sure let those laugh that win —but he repeated it, that class—the great Leviathans—paid no tax upon their property. But he would say let all real pro perty pay as all personal property paid. If real property paid the same amount of duty as personal property, they would have from that source as much as 2,500,000/ per annum, and if they could raise that sum in that manner, why need they have recourse to such an odious measure as the Income-tax? It was very unfair on the part of a Government, which pro fessed to he an impartial Government, to act in this way. Before they passed the Income• tax, let them inquire into this matter; and before they made a lawto add one shilling to the amount already paid by personal property let the land pay its share. The time had now come, not when they should add to the burdens of the people, but when they should diminish the amount of taxation ; and if t hey allowed such a state of things as at present existed to go on, they would not be acting honestly to their consti tuents. On these grounds he should suppolt his Hon. Friend, and he did hope that he would divide the House upon the subject. E WART said. that the Right Hon. Gentleman opposite, in referring to landed property and personal property, had not appeared to remember that landed property might be personal property, though personal property could not be landed pro- . perty. All those stamp duties, which the Right Hon. Baronet said were paid by landed property, were paid in a great measure by personal property. Leasehold property, for example, was personal property, and as such paid the probate and legacy duties ; but it also paid the stamp duties, which the Right Hon. Gentleman said belonged wholly to landed property. Mr. WALLACE said that, in the country to which he be longed, the probate duty was the most tyrannical, disgraceful, and the most stringent perhaps of any enactment known in that country ; it was, however, a little more genteel in Englands and a little more prompt tban there ; and whilst the House wa, arguing the question as related to England, he (Mr.. Wallace) demanded that the inquiry should also be applied to the country of which he spoke. If landed property paid its fair proportion of duty, the owners of the property would take 'care that the law should not act as it did at present. He ( Mr. Wallace) attributed the present evil state of things to that horrid system of class legislatio s which prevailed in this country. Class legislation prevailed to a great extent in that House, as was manifested in the passing of the Corn-law Bill; for he repeated that that Bill was wholly made to assist that part of England which grew the best wheat. It was great injustice to make any distinction between the taxation of real and personal property. But this was the re sult of class legislation. He hoped every man on his side of the House would denounce class legislation ; and whenever he got. to the other side along with his friends, whenever that time might be, he hoped their opposition to that system would be unceasing, for it. was class legislation that had caused the present depressed state of our trade, manufactures, the ship ping interest, and our foreign and domestic commerce. Hence there was no investment for c spital, and consequently money was crowded into the funds and the Bank. The fact that the interest of money was never so low proved this. He affirmed that the rise in the funds, of which the Right Hon. Baronet boasted as a triumphant indiCation of his policy, was not pro duced by his measures, but by the general stagnation of trade, &c. ; and he (Mr. W.) was sure th t if what he ten said should go before the public, many would join him in defying the Right Hon. Baronet to contradict his (Mr. Wallace's) position. Lord J. RUSSELL said two objections had been taken to the Hon. Gentleman's motion. The first was taken to the words of the motion, by the Right Hon. Gentleman the Chan cellor of the Exchequer, who said that if the proposed tax were imposed on real property, on the succession to real estates, making that kind pay the same amount to the State as per sonal property, that the Hon. Gentleman would not effect his object, for he would not make the burdens borne by both kinds of property equal. The second objection was, that the amount raised for the revenue would b_t very small. The Right Hon. Gentleman contended that personal property, which was settled, should not be made liable to the legacy and probate duties. Now he ( Lord J. Russell ? could understand an objection to taxes on the suecession of property, but he could not see why, if taxes were imposed on settled property, they might not be made equal.—( Hear.) If a tax on settled property were often and heavily repeated, it would amount almost to confiscation, but if it were imposed only to a mode rate amount, he did not see why it should not be levied, for some of the largest estates of the country came under the de nomination of settled property. He (the Noble Lord) there fore thought that the opposition of the Right Hon. Gentleman did not take away from the value of the general principle affirmed in the motion. The Right Hon. Gentleman now called on the Opposition to agree with the Government in adopting some system to remedy the finances of the country. He (the Noble Lord) differed from the Government when their plan of an Income and Property-tax was that proposed, and then stated from what resources he thought the revenue might be replenished. His motion was defeated, and twice since the House had affirmed the general principle of the Income-tax Bill. Still retaining his original views, he must say, that after those divisions, he could not see now how he could vote for a motion that would impose additional taxation on the country. But he hoped, that after the Income-tax was pasied, the opera tion of the legacy and probate duties would be most carefully inquired into. If the result should not increase the revenue, it would make those taxes be fairly levied, which would be a great benefit ; and he hoped this revision would be extended to the stamp ditties. . _ Sir RI PEEL said, the Hon. Gentleman who had lately been returned to the House as Member for Montrose, like a giant refreshed—( Laughter)—had shown by his speech that night, and also by his charges against him ( Sir R. Peel) on the night before, that he (Mr. Hume) was not quite aware of what .had poised during his absence. The charges hitherto made against him were, that he ( Sir R. Peel) had deluded the agricultural interest by false promises, through which he at first gained their confidence ; and it was added, that if he were now to appeal to the country, he would be, through the indignation of those classes, lelt in a small minority. —( Hear, hear.) Now, the charges made by the Hon. Member for Montrose were, that he ( Sir R. Peel) had shown gross pre judice and partiality to the agricultural interests—(" Hear, hear," from Mr. Hume, and great laughter)—that he had sacrificed the general interests to the landed monopoly, and that he ought now to receive condign punish ment on that account.—( Laughter.) Now, these latter charges consoled him for the absence of the Hon. Member for Mon trose—( Langhter)—and he (Sir R. Peel) hoped that the effect of the contrast between them and the charges brought against him earlier in the session, would be persuade the public at large, that his measures had been dictated - by no ether motives, than a sincere desire to do what he felt to be his duty, and to distribute justice as fairly as possible amongst all classes Member for M ontrose h a d no t, during his absence, remembered Cheers.) But he was surprised that the Hon. t of ha s t oci in e t t h y the course property as most un j ust . ( M r . Hume adverted to the —( of the last session , he denounced a tax on Income tax)—tending to weigh down industry, and dimini,h the funds of labour. Mr. HUME said, that last year he opposed the Income-tax as well as a Property-tax. Sir R. PEEL would remind the Hon. Gentleman of the motion he made last year, for the assessment of all kinds of property, whether real, personal, capital, or funded ; yet the Hon. Gentleman could now scarcely restrain his indignation, when he denounced a measure that would touch the funds, affirming that to do this would be to violate the most sacred obligation of the public faith.—(Hear, hear.) He hoped that after he was reminded of this contrast, the Hon. Member for Montrose would be more gentle in his opposition to the Income-tax. It was quite clear that the intention of the motion was to throw a practical obstruction in the way of the Income-tax. —(Cries of " No no.") Oh ! perhaps, then, the object was to give him the 1,7C0,000/. in addition to what he (Sir Robert Peel) already asked for.—(Laughter and cheers.) if so, then be did not know that he ought not to concur in it--( Laughter)—for the Honourable Gentle man proposed the omission of Schedule D, and that the landel pr o p erty o f t h e coun t r y un d er S c h e d u l e§ A an d B, should be liaVe to the legacy and probate duties. When they got i n t o S c h e d u l e D, he ( Sir Robert Peel) would prove that it was quite right to tax professional incomes. All he would say now of the schedule was, that he considered there were a good opening for improvements in it. But the Hon. Gentleman should know that if be were to succeed in his motion He would exempt from liability to the legacy or probate duties all the large estates which were subject to settlements. But, postponing the question mooted by the motion of the Hon. Member for the future consideration of the House, he (Sir R. Peel) hoped that, having again and again affirmed the princi ple of the Income-tax, Hon. Members would not now disturb the progress that had been made. He would only say, that it was his own conviction, and that of the Government, that a general tax upon incomes, however objectionable, wa', on the whole, the best and safest method which could be adopted to raise the 3,701,000/. expected from it ; but he believed that the House would not affirm a motion which would add 1,500 0001. to the large sum ,already asked for by the Government of the country. He admitted that the duties on stamps and conveyances formed a very complex and difficult subject, and if it should be decided that a modification of the existing system should take place, he trusted that the Government which might then be in existence would suffi ciently have the confidence of the country to justify them in entering upon that question before the whole House, instead of sending it to a Select Committee. Without expressingio. decided opinion on the necessity of re-ad justing the legacy and probate duties, he would contrast himself with saying that he preferred the Income-tax to any fund that could be raised by an extension of these duties. It appeared to him that it would not be admissable that a Member of that House holding a public situation should re cord any positive and permanent pledge against the future con sideration of a subject so complicated in its details as that before the House. It appeared to him that the subject was one surrounded with more difficulties than many apprehended. One might easily conceive how easy it would be for parties to divest themselves through evasive forms of their interest in property during their lifetime ; and unless, therefore, they ex tended something of the nature of a legacy or probate duty to each transfer during the life of the party, they would defeat the object they had in view. As the Honourable Gentleman proposed to them his measure as a substitute for the Property-tax, and as the House had de cided in favour of a Property-tax, it was quite clear that if the proposal of the Honourable Gentleman were adopted they should set at naught all their past proceedings with respect to a Property-tax, and a new financial system should be taken into their consideration. He hoped, therefore, that the House would nentive, by a large majority, the proposition of the HonourAle Gentleman, and that they would allow the Government to proceed with the consi deration of the measures they had brought forward for the relief of our financial difficulties, and which the House had affirmed, as far as their principle was concerned, after re peated discussions and by large majorities. Mr. ELLICE said that he did not wish to obstruct - , by any unfair opposition, the measures which the Governmenthadsub mitted to the House. He should state, however, in a few words, his reasons for voting in favour of the present motion. He did not wish, he confessed, to substitute the proposed duty in the place of Schedule I) in the Income-tax Bill ; but he was prepared to support the mo tion simply on the ground that he hoped he would by his vote, be advancing one step the re-considera tion of the whole system of our duties, affecting prosperity in this country. He felt assured that that system at present stood on a most unequal, unjust, and unfair footing. He owned that he had heard some objections made in that House to a property-tax in which he did not altogether concur. He had his doubts whether it was now possible to place the revenue of this country in that state of efficiency in which it ought to be placed in the present constitution of the world without imposing a tax upon property. He should say, also, that he had no objection to an appeal to property even in time of peace. because it was necessary to uphold the credit and maintain the power of the country. The moment a case of necessity had been made out for any particular tax, he should never be wanting in raising his voice in its favour. The Right Hon. Baronet had pro perly observed, that the motion then before the House em braced but one-half of the subject. It certainly appeared to him (Mr. Ellice) to be impossible to impose a duty upon land with settlement, and not to impose a duty upon land without settlement.. lie should repeat, however, that he supported the present motion, because he believed it was a step in the right direction ; and it was evidently their duty to place the taxation of the country upon a fair and equitable basis. Dr. BO WRING had listened with great pleasure to the doubting, hesitating manner in which the Right Hon. Baronet expressed his opposition to the motion beferu the House. It appeared to him that the Right Hon. Baronet had not clearly understood the opinions of his Hon. Friend the Member for Montrose (Mr. Hume), who had merely said that if foreigners with money vested in the funds of this country, were to be exempted from the payment of a per centage on these funds, on the same principle they should exempt the English fund holder. But his Hon. Friend had not expressed any positive opinion as to the propriety or impropriety of taxing funded property in general. He (Dr. Bowring) admitted that there might lie some just objection taken to the wording of the motion before the House, and he shoull therefore move as an amendment the following words, in addition to the motion as it then stood--" As a substitute for some of those taxes which weigh most oppressively upon the country." Lord HOWICK said that it seemed to be generally admitted that our present system of levying a duty on the transfer of property was open to much objection ; while, on the other hand, it seemed equally clear that if they were to adopt the motion of the Hon. Member for Lewes, even with the addition just made to it, they would by no means correct the inequality. They should enter into a general and comprehensive reform of the legacy duties, and it appeared to him that such a reform should be undertaken by the Government. He could not approve of the motion then before the House. The House had already decided in favour of the Income-tax, and by adopting the Hon. Gentleman's motion. they would not substitute this legacy duty for any part of that tax, but merely be adding a new burden to the people. He had never yet voted for any tax except it was proposed on the authority of a Go vernment, and he should not break that rule now, on a motion throwing an additional burden on the country. If the Hon. Gentleman had proposed a resolution of a different kind, to the effect that on account of this Income• tax they ought to exempt personal property from legacy duty, he might have supported it, for he considered the legacy duty as the most cruel of all at a time of the deepest distress and affliction, and its details had to be gone into at a moment when they were least prepared for them. He should not, therefore, vote for a motion of this description. Mr. ELPHINSTONE replied. He could not consent to withdraw the motion—( Hear. hear)—but if theresolution were carried, and a Bill would he founded upon it, it would be neces sary to introduce a clause subjecting both real and personal property to the sttlect of the legacy duty. The House then divided, and there appeared— For the motion 77 Against it 2'2l Majority against — 144 PORT NATAL. On our admission to the gallery we found— Colonel FOX on his legs, moving for copies or extracts from any recent official information received by her Majesty's Government from the Cape of Good Hope, respecting the present relations of the colony with the independent Boers who established themselves at Port Natal, together with any infor mation as to the treatment of the natives of South Africa by the said Boers ; also any instructions that may have been sent to the Governor of the Cape of Good Hope on these sub jects by her Majesty's Goverment. L')rd STANLEY said that the transaction to which the Gallant Member had referred, was perhaps one of the most singular that had ever taken place. These parties, who were subjects of the Brititish Crown, feeling dissatisfied from some cause or other, emigrated upwards of 600 miles themselves, their families, and property. That emigration took place in 1837, and they had remained there ever since, and were now endeavouring to declare themselves independent. Some of the causes of their di-satisfaction was the abolition of slavery, and also finding they were no longer authorised to carry on a sort of border warfare. They now claimed to be recognised as an independent State, but that was a proposition to which the Gwvernment could not listen, as they were determined to protect those tribes who had entered into a treaty with the Government of this country. From the last accounts he had received, Port Natal had been made a mi litary post, and he believed that, serious dissensions having taken place among the inhabitants, they would soon become sensible of the error they had committed. His Gallant Friend had asked whether the Government of thi: country would per. mit these Boers to place themselves under the sovereignty of any foreign nation. Now to that he must answer certainly not. On the whole he thought thepapers on this subject should be placed under the consideration of the House, in order that the House might be aware of the circumstances under which it had taken place. He had no objection to lay the historical papers on the table, but the recent instructions he could not assent to make public, neither could he allow the word independent to be applied to the Boers, as her Majesty's Government did not admit them to be so. Lord J. RUSSELL had no objection to the mode in which the Noble Lord proposed to deal with the question. He (Lord J. Russell) would venture to state that there were a few cir cumstances connected with recent transactions in the colony which he thought of a satisfactory character. One was, as the Noble Lord had stated, with respect to the Caffres, that instead of their being engaged in constant hostilities with our our own troops or settlers, from various circumstances, such as weakness an.on,g themselves and the influence of missionaries upon them and the migrated Boers, the relations be tween the Caffres and the authorities at the Cape were more friendly during the last year than for some time previou•ly.— ( Hear.) Another satisfactory circum stance was, that the Boers at Port Natal, not being able to form any connexion with European States, nor to establish any Government among themselves, they feel more and more the want of commercial relations with the Cape of Good Hope. When they had applied at the Cape to be acknowledged as an independent nation, their flag was re fused to be recognised. The inconvenience arising from that would press more uuon them, and would be likely to lead to the settlement of tile present differences. There was one question on this subject which he wished to put to the Noble Lord. It referred to the military force at the Cape. He understood that it was proposed to send the regiment at the Cape to India, and to replace it by half of the re giment stationed at St. Helena. He wished to know was that the case, and what was meant to be the permanent force at the Cape ? Mr. HUME wished to know from the Noble Lord whether Port Natal had been in the possession of the English lefore the Boers had located there ? Lord STANLEY made some observations in an indistinct tone, the purport of vihich we understood to be that Government did not intend to offer any encouragement to the settlement of the Boers at Port Natal. The Noble Lord then went on to say, that in reply to the Noble Lord opposite (Lord J. Russell), be had to state that it was the intention of the Government to withdraw the regiment stationed at the Cape of Good Hope, and reinforce the garrisbn there by a portion of the regiment stationed at St. Helena. With reference to the amount of force to be kept up at the Cape—whether more or less regiments than at present should be kept permanently at that station, that would, of course, depend on the exigencies of the future. Lord J. RUSSELL—I mean the force at present. Lord STANLEY—It is not the intention of Government to send more than half a regiment to the Cape at present. Mr. HUME, amidst cries of " Spoke, spoke," said the Noble Lord had not answered his question. He wished to know whether the territory possessed by the Boers was cleared before they took possession of it. Lord S'T'ANLEY said that he had stated that Port Natal was part of the territory over which Great Britain claimed sovereignty, but it had not been occupied before they took pos session of it. Colonel FOX said, that the Dutch East India Company had originally purchased the territory of the Dutch Governm , nt, and that we had come into possession of that Company's right. The motion was then agreed to. NORFOLK CONSTABULARY. Mr. BURROUGHES said that the Honourable Mem ber for Finsbury had, some short time since, made a state ment relative to the treatment by the Norfolk constabulary of a mart who was said to have been locked up in a stable, and chained to the manger. He (Mr. Burroughes) had made inquiries into the matter, aud.had found that no cru"lty whatever was committed in the case alluded to. The stable, which had for some time ceased to be used as such, was large and clean, and there was abundance of straw in it, and there was no prisoner that would not prefer being con fined in it to being locked up in a gaol.—( Hear, hear. ) 'I he Honourable Member then read several documents to cor roborate his statement, and concluded by moving for a " Copy of a letter from Colonel Oakes, Chief Constable of the Norfolk Constabulary, to the Chairman of Quarter Sessions, dated the Bth day of April, 1842, with enclosures." The motion having been put, Mr. T. DUNCOMBE said that the Right Honourable Baronet had often attacked his (Mr. Duncombe's) side of the House for obstructing the public business, and particularly that very popular measure the Income.tax.—(Laughter. ) But after the speech of the Honourable Member for Norfolk, who had been deputed by the Right Honourable Baronet to investigate this case, and who had during the recess visited the stable in which this person was chained, he did not think he had so much right to com plain of the delays occasioned by his side of the House.— (Hear.) With regard to the degree of severity which this person was subjected to, and which was not con3idered so severe by the Hon. Member, he thought that before he could form any correct judgment on the subject, he should be subjected to the same punishment himself, and chained up short.—(Laugh ter.) The Hon. Gentleman said that his statement was an over-coloured one, but the fact was, he rather under-stated it. What was the case ? This policeman was going from 1 armouth to Norfolk, and met with a man without shift or ~hoes upon him, when he jumped off his horse, and asked what he was doing? and upon the man answering that he was doing nothing, and was going to Norfolk, the Superintendent searched him, and finding some tracts upon him, he wanted to know what he wanted those tracts for ; and hearing that he had them to sell, he asked for his hawker's license, and the person not being able to produce it, he took him into sastody as a vagrant, and chained him to the manger. The man fled, because the denier of the manger came in and relieved him from the imprisonment. He was afterward found wandering in the s'reets of Norwich, and brought before the Magistrates, who saw nothing to blame in the conduct of the policeman. The same policeman took another man home with him, and chained him to the bedstead. He (Mr. D.) was borne out in all that he had said. The Hon. Member (Mr. B. ) thought he had no grounds for the statements he had made. But he would show that Sir James Graham was precisely of the same opinion which he (Mr. D.) had expressed. He would read to the Howe a letter from Mr. Phillips, dated White. hall, Dec. 10, 1841, to the effect that he was directed by Sir James Graham to write to Superintendent Smith relative to the complaint of Mr. Farmer, and to say that Sir J. Graham was of opinion that the policeman ought not to have chained his prisoner to the manger—( Hear, hear)—and that he ought not to have chained another to his bed-post—( Hear, hear) —and that Sir J. Graham hoped that orders would be given by Superintendent Smith to his constables not to act in such a way in future.—( Cheers.) The motion was then agreed to. INCOME TAX AND TARIFF. Lord J. RUSSELL heg,ged to ask the Right Hon. Gentle man (Sir R. Peel) whether it was his intention to bring on his motion respecting the bringing on of orders of the day before resolutions, on Tuesdays, after the 9th of May, whilst. the In come-tax and the tariff were under the consideration of the Home ? _ Sir H. PEEL said, it was his intention to bring forward that motion, if he thought he could have the general concurrence of the House. It was intimated to him, towever, by a number of .Members that it would occasion considerable inconvenience to many Members who had given notices of motion. He would, however, if that met with the views of the Noble Lord, take the sense of the House at five o'clock on Thursday next, or, if the Nobe Lord thought that the House was now sufficiently fun, he would take the sense of the House now. Lord J. RUSSELL said that he did not think it ought to be brought on at to late an hour. . . Sir ROBERT PEEL then said that he would bring it on on Thursday. ____ _ THE MODEL PRISON. Sir J. GRAHIIII said he would not detain the House but for a very short time in asking leave for bringing in a Bill very similar to that brought in by the Noble Lord opposite, for putting into use the model prison at Pentonville. The regult tions would be in most respects the same as at the Penitentiary, and the cost of the building would be about 90,0001. Leave was then given to being in the Bill, which will be read a first time to-morrow. PARISH CONSTABLES BILL. Sir JAMES GRAHAM moved for leave to bring in a Bill for regulating the appointment and payment of parish con stables. He proposed by the Bill to make it incumbent as the Magistrates holding Petty Sessions in any township to hold an annual Session for the appointment of constables for sod. township. He further proposed to give to the ra e-payers, in vestry assembled, a permissive power to pay the constables so appointed ; and he further proposed that the constables so ap• pointed should be placed under the control of the superintendent of rural police appointed by th.? Court of Quarter Sessions. He would not enter into any further details, but would content hi nself with moving for leave to bring in the Bill. Leave was then given to bring in a Bill, which was brought in accordingly, and read a first time. COPYRIGHT BILL. On the Order of the Day for the third reading of the Copy right Bill being read, Mr. HUME protested against the Bill as one calculated to interfere materially with the diffusion of knowledge. Such pub lications as Chambers' Edinburgh Journal would be anni hilated by this measure. After the manner ia which the sense of the House had been expressed on the subject, he would not do more than protest against the measure. The Bill was then read a third time and passed. SOAP DUTIES. The Report on the Soap Duties Bill was brought up. EXCHEQUER BILLS BILL. Sir G. CLERK brought in the Exchequef Bills Bill, which was read a first time. The other Orders of the Day were then disposed of, and the House adjourned at a Quarter past Twelve o'Cloek. PARLIAMENTARY DIVISION. (From the Votes and Proceedings of the House of Commons.) MONDAY, APRIL 25. THE PROPERTY TAX BILL. DIVISION on Mr. RICARDO'S AMENDMENT on SCHEDULE C. MINORITY—AYES„ Aldam, William I Hawes, B. Armstrong, Sir A. Hay, Sir A. L. 4ttwood, M. Heathcoat, John Baring, , F. T. Henea.ir, E. Bell, John Hill, Lord Marcus Berkeley, Captain • Hobhouse, Sir J. C. Bernal, R. Howard, C. W. G. Bernal, Captain Lord Blewitt, Reginald Hume, Joseph Bowring, Or. Hutt, W. Brotherton, J. James, W. Brown; W. Jardine, William Cnristie, W. D. .iervis, J. Clements, Lord Leader, J. T. Cobeen, Richard Listowel, Earl of Colltorne, W Ridley M•Taggart, John Colebrooke, Sir T. E. Marjoribanks, S Collins, W. Martin, John 117. Rice, E. B. Roche, E. B. Roebuck, J A. Rundle, John Rutherlurd, A. Scholefield, J. Seymour, Lord Shcil, R. L. Smith, henjamin Somerville, Sir W. Stanley, W 0. Stanstield, W. R. Stmiton, W. H. Strutt, Edward Stuart, Lord J. Taucrel, H. W. Thornely, Thomas Tollemache, F. J. Towneley, John Tufnell; Henry Turner, E Villiers, Charles P. Vivian, C. C. Vivian Hon. Contain Walker, R. Wallace, It. Ward, H. 0. Watson W. H. Wiwi', John T. Williams, Win. Wilshere, W. Winningtoii, Sir 1 Woo Benjamin Worsley, Lord Wrightson, W Yorke, H. Redhead Craig, W. Gibson Crawford, W. Maule, Hon Fox Mitealle Henry Dalrymple, Captain Dash w ood, G. IL 'Mitchell, 'l'. A Morris, David. J imistodn, J. Duke, Sir James Duncan, Lord Duncan, George Duncombe, T. S. Dundas, Admiral Dundas, F. Mice, It , . Hon. E. Evans, William: . Forster, Matthew Fox, Charles Richard Gibson. 'l'. M. Gill, Thomas 1 - . Morison, Wiliam Mostyn, Hon E. M, Murphy, F. S. Murray, A. Napier, Sir Charles. Norreys, Sir D. O'Brien, C. 0' Brien, . J. O'Brien, W. Smith O'COnnell, J. O'Connell, J. Ogle, S. C. U. Parker, John Granger, I'. C. Guest, J. Hall, Sir B. Pecticlf, Captain Philips, Mark Plunuidge, Captain , larris, John Q Hastio, A. Ponsolib — y,'C P. A. Power, James: TELLERS. Ricardo, John Lewis Smith, Vei 11011 A'Court, Captain Ackers, James Acton, Colonel Adare, Lord JORITY—NOES Egerton, Lcrd Fran. Eliot, Lora Estcourt, T. G. B. Farnham, E. B. Feilden, W Fellowes, Edward Ferguson, Sir It A. Filmer, Sir E Fitzroy, Captain Fitzroy, Ho . H. Forbes, ‘'‘ illiam Forester, Hon. G. Fuller, A. E. Gaskell, J. M. Gladstone, W. E. Gordon, Hon. W. Gore, W Gore, W. R. 0. Goring, H. D. Goulburn, H. Graham, Sir J. Granby, Marquis Grimston, Lord Grogan, Edward Hale, It. B. Salford, H. Hamilton, C J. B. Hamilton, W. J. Hamilton, Lord C. Ham den, Renn Hanmer, Sir John Hardinge, Sir H. Hardy, Joh❑ Hawkes, T. Hayes, Sir E. Heneagc, G. W. Henley, J. W. Hepburn, Sir 'LB. Herbert, Hon. S. Hodgson, F. Hodgson, R. Hogg, J. W. Holmes, W. A'Court Hope, Charles Hornby, John Howard, E. G. Howard; P. H. Ingestre, Lord Inglis, Sir R. H. Iron, Samuel Jackson, J. D. James, Sir Walter Jerrayn, Earl Johnson, W. G. Johnstone, Hope .rolliffe, Sir W. Jones, T. Kelburne, Lord Kemble, Henry Kerrison, Sir E. Kirk, P Knatchbull, Sir E. Knight, Henry Gaily Lascelles, W. S. Law, Hon. C. E. Lawson, Andrew Legh, George C. Liddell, H. 'l'. Lincoln, Earl of Lockhart, William Lowther, Colonel Lyall, George Mackenzie, Thomas Mackenzie, W. F Mackinnon, W. A. Maclean, D.Jwild MacGoachy, F. A. Mainwaring, T Marshain, Viscount Martin, C. W. Martyn, C. Cecil Marton, G. It. Master, T. W. C. Mu.erman, John Merrell, H. 253, I Miles, I'. W. S. Miles, W. Milnes. R. M. iVJ;rdaunt, Sir J. Morgan, Octavius Mundy, E. Miler Murray, C. R. S. Neeld, Joseph Neville, Ralph Newry, Viscount Nichol!, J Norreys, Lord O'Brie , A. Stafford Parke, C. W. Paget, Lord W. Pakington, John S. Palmer, R. Palmer, G. Patten, John Wilson Peel, Sir R Peel, Jonathan Planta, J. Plumptre, J. P. Polhill, F. Pollinaton, Viscount Pollock, Sir 1' Powell, Colonel Praed, W. T. Pringle, A. Pusey, Philip Rashleigh, William Reade, W. M. Reid, Sir J. R. Repton, George J. Ri-harcis, Richard Rolleston, Colonel Round, J. linshbrooke, Colone Ryder, G. D. Sandon, Lord Scarlett. Hon. R. Scott, Hon. F. t Seymour, Sir H. R. Sheppard, Thomas Shirley, Evelyn J. Shirley, E. P. Sibthorp, Colonel Srmith, Abel Smollett, A Somerset, Lord G. Somerton, Viscount Sotheron, T. H. Stanley, Lord Stewart, John Stuart, H. Sturt, H. C. Su.ton, Henry M Talbot, C. tt. M. Tennent, J. E. Thesiger, F. Thompson, Ald. Tondoie ' George Trench, Sir Frederick Trevor, Hon. G. R. rotter, John Tumor, Chi istopher Vere, Sir C. B. Verner, W. Vernon, Granville Vivian, John Ennis Walsh, Sir J. Welby, G. Yarle Wi , braham, It. B. Williams, I'. P. Wodehouse, Edmond Wood, Colonel Wood, Colonel T. Wortley, J. , tuart Wyndham, Colonel . ‘Vynn„ C. W. Yorke, lion. E. T. Young, John Adderiey, C. B. Ainsworth, Peter Viscwuu Antrobus, Edmund Arbuthnot, Hon. H, Archdall, General Arkwright. George Astall, William pagot, Hon. W. Bailey, J. Bailey, Joseph, jun. BaiHie, Colonel Baird, Will am Bahiv;in, C. Barry Balfour, J. M. Baring, W. B. Barrington, Lord liaskerville, T. B. M. Bateson, Sir Robert Beckett, William Bell, 31. Bentinck, Lord G Berestor 1, Captain Berrsford, Major Bernard, Viscount Blackburn, John I. Blake, Blakem' ore, R. W. H. Boldero, Henry G, Bort h wick, Peter Sottield, Beriah Bradshaw, James Bramston, T. W. D.roatticy, Henry Broadwood, H. • , _ 113 , 00ke, Sir A. B. Bruen, Colonel • Buck, Lewis W. :iuekley, Edmund palter, Sir J. B. Y. itimbury, Thomas Burrell, Sir C. B. Burroughes, N. N. Campbell, ir H. Campbell, A. Cardwell, Edward Carnegie, Captain hapman, Aaron Chelsea, Viscount Chetwode, Sir John Christmas, William Christopher, R: A. Chute, W. L. layton, R. R. Clemznts, H. J. Clerk, Sir G. — rive, R. H. .:Ocii;ane, A. rodrington, C. NV. Collett, W. Bickford Colville, C Connolly, Colonel Corry, H. L. Courtenay, Viscount Cripps, J. Darby, George Dawnay, Hon. W. Denison, E. Beckett Dick nson. F. Dodd, George Douglas, su Howard Douglas, Sir C. E. Douglas. 1 D. S. Douro, Marquis of Druminonii, H H. Duffield, Thomas Dugdale, W. S. Duncombe, A. East, James Buller Eaton, Richard J. Egerton, Su F. G. TELLERS. Fremantle. Sir T. Baring, H B. DISTURBANCES IN NORTH WALES. The greatest excitement has prevailed in Hawarden, North Wales, near the seat of Sir Stephen Glynne, Bart., for the last few days, in consequence of the turn-out of all the hands working in the extensive collieries of Messrs. Rigby and Han cock (a firm paying about 5001. per week in wages), and the attempts of these men to cause other operatives in collieries to turn out and support them in what appears to be most unrea s,itiable demands. The question in dispute is somewhat of a similar nature to that between Messrs. Peto and Gtissell, of London, and their men, which occurred a short time age—viz , whether the men should choose a superinteadant over them, or that the proprietors of the mines should retain the undoubted right of appointing their own agents. It appears that the firm of Messrs. Rigby and Hancock is at present carried on by trustees. and that a gentleman of independent property named Staley has been appointed agent to the collieries. This gentle man, having received many complaints that the coals were not properly cleared from small slack, introduced riddles to be used by the colliers with larger apertures than tho , e previously in use. This gave offence to the colliers, and they refused to work; they came out of the pits, and assembled in consi,:erable numbers in the town of Hawarden, threatening violence if the agent persevered in introducing the obnoxious riddles. About eighty or ninety of them surrounded the door of Mr. Staley's offices, and on his attempting to take his tiepar tore, they surrounded him, and stated that they should no t go to work again unless ha promised to leave the works, never to return. Mr. Staley, after vainly at tempting to pacify them, tried to pass through the mob to mount his horse, when he Vi as violently seized and carried to wards the railway formed for conveying coals to the river Dee, at Queen's-ferry. Here he was thrust into the bottom of a railway coal-waggon, and conveyed, very much bruised, along the line of rail towards the river, the ruffians on their way telling him that he had not long to live, as they intended to drown him in the Dee. On arriving at the Queen's -ferry they stated that his life would be spared then, but only on condition of banishment to England. fig was then placed in the ferry-boat, the colliers threatening vengeance if ever he dared to return. Sir. Leigh Rigby conveyed Mr. Staley in his carriage to his house at Hawarden ; but in the morning three hundred colliers surrounded Mr. Rigby's house, demanding that Mr. Staley should be sent out of the country. The colliers subsequently went to the rest of the coal-mines, endeavouring to get the eta hers to strike work, and the result has been that they are now , demanding higher wages. They now average from 18s. to 251 per week a swan. Four of the underground su perintend the mines have since been compelled to leave the place lr % threats of violence, and Messrs. Rigby, who are away frnru t so ; scene of disturbance, are determined to support Mr. Staley , to resist the demands of the men. The Magistrates loe the alert to call in the military should any further violence offered. Several houses have since been broken into, anu v , is expected that several of the ringleaders will be taken custody. The police force of the neighbourhood ivery and Mr. Staley dare not enter Wales to identify his pesseeni' from fear of his life. ANTI-CORN-LAW ASSOCIATIO I ' , , The annual meeting of the Subscribers to the ,A9tr elation waslield, yesterday, at the Crown and - Anc °° a , Tavern. On the platform we observed the Earinf nor, Lord Ijinnaird, the Hon. C. P. Villiers, IV' Milner Gibson, M.P., Dr. Bowring, M.P., Col. Th,tlPl e &c. The room was extremely full at . two o'clOokr time at which the meeting was called. saiL Mr. IVannuirroN took the chair, and in doing , he would not trespass on their time with any retne r " s t f,, his own, as there were several Noble Lords and . G el ; re - e , men ready to address the meeting; he should, ther e ' ° th content himself by ceiling on the Secretary to tea° Report. Mr. S. Salmi then read the following Report :-- . tae The Business Committee appointed by the Metrop e L Anti-Corn-law Association to transact the details of its &fri,. beg leave to render to their constituents an ivcourit of management for the past year, 1841. The Interim Address issued by the Committee at the F llse ,o of the year, which has been exten , ively circulated, and ',see the hands of all the members, supersedes the necessity of ° y enumerating various details, of which it would othereis° the duty of the Committee to make a report. Since the date of the last - annual getieral meeting. the Or o ,' ber of Branch Associations, in connexion with this Society' increased from seventeen to sixty-four. tea to subscriptions which, for the year 1480, amounted 994/. 10s. 4d., have, up to 31st December, 1841, .reach °" sum of 1,332/. 16s. Id; The payments have beery" £ ire d' Rent Public meetings Stationery .... '7 Priating Lithography 192 16 ° Advertisements........ l2 20 Sa'aries, lectures, clerks, &c. Wa;es, postage, parcels, and petty dis bursements £1,382 11 Id Up to the end of last year the Association distributed d i- t te parts of town and country, 252,537 tracts on the subjeetZ a il food laws and tree trade, of which a particular list is ear in the hands of members ; as also of four hundred and c'f; o : seven lectures delivered under the auspices of the Asiociswee The number of petitioners against the Corn-laws, fo r _ A to year 1840, was 1,4.59,545; for 1841. they increas7 s 4l , 1,756,645 ; and for the first three monthS and a half. of they already amount to 1,693,671 ; and the number of pot' to 3,870. It is satisfactory to be enabled to report the re altered tone of these petitions. While a very considereb, f o to portion of those presented in past years prayed Mut o ttl modification or alteration of the Corn-laws, those for 1842 are very nearly ananimous in demanding ihell and immediate repeal. Among the events connected with the business of the ld ) " elation, since the date of the last Address, the Committee ~tit refer to the success of the Manchester Anti-Corn-lam 1 " the claims of which to the assistance of the metropolitan P a d were efficiently urged by this Association. The - .olW e Liri' answered by the presentation of numerous and valuable v — c io rr buttons, which were transmitted to the Bazaar by mittee. • es tcl The Association took an active part in the manage° co!' the business of the Great Metropolitan Anti-Corn:4 o ,oi' ference; a member of the Committee having beeo.r.,ot mously elected its president, while Mr. Sidney Sreiw" of called to undertake the duties of its Secretary. The Conl e e believe that the numbers, intelligence, and social indite, o re that assembly produced a powerful effect upon the Legivoo 4 , while the ability, good, sense, and spirit with which its to" was conducted were well calculated to secure the symentwe confidence of the community. / The Committee have the satisfaction to report the e= Il# of an increase of zeal, intelligence, and business habit" t ilt' various branches of the Association since the date of the Itt e part. Their meetings are more frequent and regular--;so° (cadence at lectures greater—and their local import 3l lt o political weight are much more sensibly recognised b , community. Their steady support to, and prompt cci- o ,e, with, the operations of the Association, and of the Leagull,ioll, been of essential service to the cause, and are thus r o la!, and gratetully acknowledged by the Commitee; who l it / the same time point out to their censtituents.thea, communication and extent of influence which this o et zation places at their disposal; and the great saving ," t bd pense to the central Association, at which these i n i;ol 6 ' enable the Committee vigorously to effect greatly ex operations. The stock of tracts on hand is at present not incOn'i_., a ' r tfoill and the Committee take this public opportunity of 'thiw co otr acknowledging the gift of several valuable and useful o ,oo' butions of broadsheets and pamphlets. They would Os°, s! iniistl the promptitude with which their correspondents - in of the country have cce-• perated in the business of pft,i ll, "ti° it memorials, and communicated to them much mO O . amereary and other intelligence connected with theso C The operations of the Association have been ernineo_loll cessful, not only in arousing, but in enlightenin4 .l ?Vs sr; mind on the subject of monopolies, and of the prniclP`_er nature of public taxation. Indeed the Cominitteenefloa: that the work of conviction among the commercial'e et,lool facturing communities has, to a great extent, been accoMl% lol l ll But the preponderance of legislative influence possessed ° _agricultural interest renders it necessary that before all e Parliamentary success can be attained, there must extensive conversion to free trade opinions of the ru ral 4 4, tuencies. The unseemly spectacle of a kingdom divided re itself in the existing antagonism of the commercial ar eel cultural bodies, the Committee are most anxious to Igo' and the growing dissatisfaction of tne tenantry with'tbe IP tion of the new sliding scale and tariff, and the inflickien_ d itt° Income-tax residers it high y probable that if the C° oil are enabled by the liberality of the public to carry their l e o pi tions into the surrounding predial districts, the ienr,ro, Great Britain may at no distant date be found in.tb the Association, covinced, with Lord Western, that t and immediate renunciation of protection, which . e i , them at once to know with what they have to content , 1 ".11. 1 , preferable to the uncertainty of those perpetual ch a the direction of the removal of commercial res trictiettactn the progressive disproportion betwixt the domestic Pr''4, at'food, and the increasing numbers of the pepula t ' i ?%o with the growing influence of free trade doctrines, re or evitable. i t ioe o de The Committee would congratulate the Assoel ,00 the extent and rapidity of the success of their elerctltbe sated by the alt , red language of the Legislature, a n d The mercial revolution effected by the Government.. sret, Corn-law sophisms which were urged in epposit-i° t i o , on! formally abjured by the members of the Cabinet ; f o rt!'" ness of the principles of the Association has been T ad es 4 recognised ; and credit has been even claimed for 9 , ersk:‘ deavours, safely and gradually to carry them into t ngl Oolf,:o of fiscal legislation ; while the leading members of the oes tr oo ment have explicitly disclaimed the finality of th e ta 0 1 _10 1 they propose, and claim for them only the charae, re tr - os commencement of a system of alterations in the ent i ce ll'o¢ the country. This virtual challenge to perserel i b l e fl e e t enlightening of the public mind, combined with heel ef il# conviction that r the imposition of new taxes has' osexe upon the country solely from the incapacity of the of people to meet aoy longer the demands of tb;o97oers' ' venue, while they are impoverished by the . A ies ' o re private and class monopolies, and their eat', of e; tysed by commercial restrictions, call for more vitribse r goo r : tions, and give better promise of speedy . succe4,o l while the formal recognition of the principles 0 1 _„,e, ce ol ife l ! made equally by the late and tl . .e present Goveroon i ty ott . , from the advocates of free trade all suspicion the i tibo e in the advocacy of a cause which is now vindicate4o. 0 0. lieent Members of both the great parties in the • tosi v el7, scarcely thirteen years ago Mr. Hume's motion, f c f c ionl e l o are. duty on wheat of twenty shillings per quarter, fouL _ ..s jortli t supporters in the House of Commons, the sating w o f 1 0 4 new carried through both Houses by an overwh,e's6oo o ,„ 11' of that Geetleman's political opponents. The !j o t . ofl_qoap e c , i year for inquiry into the Corn-laws, which o ff° l o 6 6° ,nort adherents, when brought forward in the neer 'fisn y ;A an' this year of a motion for a low fixed duty, has ufi.s tWi t oie% by 226 votes, and Mr. Villiers' specific motion,_%);(in c immediate repeal of the Corn-laws, has recel_%.oe....tio o9 , pairs) the support of 110 representatives of the c i ii` k - oPv; s The Committee have endeavoured to conduc t oa,:oL c ioC)' of the Association with as mueh attention to . c _ c aew ‘e consistent with maintaining a character of spirltrea Moho The subscriptions hitherto realised for the serv e rent year exhibit no falling off in the libera lit yose c oor e or the resources of the Association. The ewn!,; ts -oft e . r tb. to add, that the present state and future prosr - it ios. try, now more than ever call for renewlectsr:dev:nrludr enforcement of the legislative adoption of free ;t oil pu b , and that it will be their' earne-t endeavour, fart C ut s 1 , 1 _ 1 1 7 1 , the/ fully to apply all the funds which their con%i n ks °' . .!, te e, aitheir disposal, to the attainment of the Of toe re,air are associated to accomplish. By order cs, spectfully reported by FRANCIS PL;;4 I, C7 - ` SIDNEY Sith ` oroe ecu 448, Strand, London, April 26, 18 42 . inte of the The CHAIRMAN said, that before the . ,.. e l, t he f!e i c a pett, ing he should put the ordinar uestion! T he s hoti ott at ceived, adopted, printed, and Circulated. ~Du r ead oor. question then, in order that the Earl of e• ; 11 ,00t"L',, pro i p .h o e se E t a h r e l o ti t rs ß t A re n s n ol n u n tio th n e .— n ( r C os h e ee a r n sal . t o ls i e rd r ° t . he Chair.. ideob • t h coo s i d ence to the call of the Hon. Gentleroell d IV, 12te d propose the first resolution, but he Li en Ole° hso reluctance, as he was no orator, and form the duty which had been entrus e te ld ri t d n. h bi e ra in . g" i fe s r ne tl e i d el e i r : been asked to move the resolution , and anx iety P rey anxious on the subject, he had allowed ", o e a nxie ty rs t fare of the cause to supersede his feaeLl'gseswasinilaig:at',t ostcebe:tg..l:o,9 haps he might be allowed to say. p art Y a that 6°1' 03 fel le y as a proof of his anxiety in the cou, n e ' cle d.--( , C , o h ee st a pa." 4l meeting of the sort he had ever resolution he had been requested to e e - Pbaneful enel t i s a nu the 0 1 6 7 0 1 and protracted experience hersvi violation t a i t o t n h o i s f , the the r ri i t T n i r p d l e s th i f vue is r h s A ar is . ; c ie i c a tu t i ; h n i:til eppri n a nd P j ° Y rest c 7 the justice, humanit, and s t o w the Pres e-t rin g and B e rl ntuo fte rs t re u elise lion, have and w a gloomyys advocated, p rns w a c n t d . s e d ° f e a t e h e n t i o na n s , community demand 'caws power t° to in the chealoi Briton the invaluable urchase his f rT z s for k tr a , r , ulated thenl yet d then' of He co ngrat d hut He congratulate in the best market, ent tme. t heard Tea Corn-law at the pres n ort thee had jus course wtie ' fl a ttering .-seP lead made in the co Tiag t ie only on toeand t he room, the progress the here entered Earl continue.. ea tha t WI t ee months.—( Mr. How e . ) The Noble ceived with loud cheerieg. nce, and when th.Y., l _ re w as ee soeiation had been in exihstaed and fthe position of the queition ° r „ o t progress thex principles For the first year a t t d ii t h h e- , 1 . t re r if cause for congratulatio • it was no . se on t rOMess; sociation made but Tittle p el'of Commons, which s at :°n the s Tii 4 the Committee of the ..do.tis It was that that direc ted t the P a o/ believed that it was som.ewhereadaebohuet ,:hunrefeessyee:eatva.ena:ff.,se port duties was published. By that rel'f r mind seemed to be at once ct drawn e.eering. The erg u s :l s . o en yeaff gre ol their prospects were me n different to those used . t the 00 them were totally eve Pr 0 bite t a gainst • and this was anoth lion of the public to the subject. in by t he " me Part)" had made. the quesletisotrie is mind In the very a Secs progress their cause n ettle njes t us ed against the repot. den Parliament, the argumen s At the present - 100 ec it of foreign count.ries• given up, the only pe on ) r ; re . took place in the House of Lords, daring the Ist C I ougbt to be totally - 1 0 " n u t could using it being thea:arergusmweanstth,,a,tatshiesaciorunyptr country At of Wellin4ton•- ,4 " m e - f e t food for the increasing pop ho supply sufficient tused by their opponentee , o f had been another argument • lv given up, and that was thenet° ce was not en tire was now admitted on all hand . s that .the couunitartYinn. „. ay , f or a Noble Lord, in the fro s ed b ss eg di 7ta: sd be“ 4l in of iriteetiS l t t d i e c b t a i° te n , tl:adagradmitted ; th h a ' t ut th 'e e viel s n rs t i h e ca°t p _ to . --Orions to Ireland. It had also been stated ~~ Lo► this• . bee fox boy 11 ,, e (E; the *hi • sue , Feb . , tho vald He seal law to t for E , this the Bre 3 3 rlcl of j put hob adv tnic cou prig Sta tivE I eou 'Col : ( his Brc to was n o 1 • Juti req for alai pat the . ino qui grit "the car of sue • sou cor ant ' sun era our ing I)er • eon but ten Pn our lan 'rot ep 1 : • '~f , i