The Sun.
London, England, 1858-05-19 00:00:00

LORD CANNING'S PROCLAMATION.

Mr. CRAWFORD said it was generally understood
that Colonel Franks, the officer alluded to as having
just returned from Lucknow, had stated that before his
departure from Lucknow it was understood that the pro-
clamation which had been so much referred to, had been
issued by Lord Canning in obedience to instructions
sent nut from this country. (Hear.) He begged to Lok
the late President of the Board of Control whether such
was the case or not ? (Hear.)
Mr. T. SMITH (after a brief consultatio❑ with Lord
Palmerston) said the question was so obviously ridicu-
lous that it hardly required an answer. (Hear, and a
laugh.) He had already said that the first instruction he
bad received respecting the proclamation he had given
the substance of to the house.

Sir J. PAKINGTON said that a feeling of justice to-
wards Colonel Franks compelled him to take some notice
of the question. Colonel Fraoks-felt considerable deli-
cacy with respect to the conversation which had taken
place between himself and Lord Canning, and was most
solicitous that he should not be supposed to have re-
flected in any manner upon that nobleman. The boo.
member for London was misinformed as to the facts.
Colonel Franks had heard a rumour that the proclama-
tion of Lord Canning was the result of a communication
with the late President of the Board of Control (Mr. V.
Smith), but Colonel Franks said that that impression
was erroneous, and had arisen from the inference that
from all that had taken place the proclamation must
have issued from instructions from home. Col. Pranks,
however, did not intend to say that the proclamation
had so issued. (Hear, hear.)
The motion for adjournment till Thursday was then
agreed to.
PROBATE DUTY ON REAL PROPERTY.
Mr. W. WILLIAMS then rose to move the follow-
ing resolution, viz., " That in the opinion of this house,
and impropriate tithes should ply the
duty as that now pAyable on perso 'al pro-
perty,belonging to corporat'
and that property us,
samere real pprroopbearttey
duties
te and legacy equivalent to tho e
uni-
versities, college;, bishoprics, and deans and chaptere,
should pay probe
member in stating his reasons
cow levied on personal prospfeorrtyd.e"nouToheeinghaosnoaugrarebalet
t of probate duty,
tbnedpeadyamnsclo all other descrip-
tions of real property
ii•justice the exem
had been ieflicted in 1796.
observed that. the injus ice
ptiofnroomf
fie believed by in posing this tax on the richer classee
would be augmented to the amount et
the Exchequer
2,500,000 annually, He called on the Chancellor of the
Exchequer to carry out the policy in this respect which
he had enunciated in 1852.
Mr. HADFIELD sect nded the motion.
Mr. ALCOCK thought the
house ought to f el in
debted to the hon. member for bringing forward the-
'notion, believing that landed property did not pay its
fair share of the gent ral taxation. It was only reason-
able and fair that lanced property should pay the same
proportion as all other property.
Mr. GLA.DSTONE rose to reply to the question put
tohiro by the bon. and learned member for Sheffield
whether, in 1153, when be (Mr. Gladstone) bad the
honour of proposieg his bill on the succession duty, it
an declared by him on'the part of their Government,
it was their intention to propose that the probate duty
should be applied to landed propery,
priated tithese the same and lay unappi o-
ne on personal property. He