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

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 not in accordance
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 the evils, but if he did not hear
that such was their intention, 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 Government ought to look strictly their interest. He
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 apply the
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
wouldsotpi on rgtt
amokn money
not
efh
y the
10,0001.,ai
example
and other. property, was as one to one, and the
funds.
eoperty to personal was as sto 8. He
and
ds
.a
vestedp Nowe rs o person vesting eoswot
lei n.
would
soaunnpedpyeai s inland
and
aa
snpd,
e 0 aind
.
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 John 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 Montrose had not, during his absence, remembered
Cheers.) But he was surprised that the Hon.
tofhastociinetthy
the course
property as most unjust. ( Mr. 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 property of the country under Schedule§ A and
B, should be liaVe to the legacy and probate duties. When
they got into Schedule 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.