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

THE SUN, LONDON, WEDNESDAY EVEI\rING-, APRIL 27, 1.842.

.ccuracy. 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. Ihe Right Hon. Baronet had said that the taxes paid
by land, in the way of stamp duties upon transfer and eon-
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 hail made among the members of
the legal profession, and among the law stationers, had been to
convince him that of the 1.300.0001. paid annually as stamp
duty on conveyances, not more than 4,030/. 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 for 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 once in fourteen years.
He asereed in thinking that the stamp duty on conveyance was
rather high, but it was not more unjust to the landed proprietor
that the i neo-ition of the receipt stamp was to the tradesman.
The Ilieht 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. It a poor man wished to raise 501. 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 i-ovestigated 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 of real property to the ansount.of
20,0001., the stamp duty would be 81. ; that . was 11.15;.
stamp duty, arid as the deed would take up five or six skins,
there would be an additional duty on each skin that would
make it about 8/. ; whereas, if he wished to make a settlement
of 20,000/. funded property , he would have to pay a stamp
duty of 311. sa.—that was, 25/. fur the stamp, and 6/. ss. for
the skins, as iii 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.
Mr. FIUME 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 .1. 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 lad 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 toe Honourable Gentleman should be adopt-
ed, the effect would be to leave the bulk of the
lauded 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 net 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 sons the
Hon. Mr. Scott ; but the Hon. Gentleman must consider that
the property descended by settlement, and under the proposis
tion of the Hon. Gentleman it would have escaped the duty
altogether. This Hon. Gentleman had alluded to the statue
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 were 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 host 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 096 appied to personal property alone. Mr. Pitt
had proposed afterwards that real property should be sub-
ject to the duty on all its changes, ;Ad these charges amounted
to nearly as much as the legacy on personal property.
The proportion of duty paid on personal property
and other property, was as one to one, and the
proportion of landed property to personal was as sto 8. He
would take the example of a person vesting money inland and
vesting money in the funds. Now he would suppose a person
accumulated 10,0001., and vested 5,000/. in land and 5,0001.
in the funds. Now, if he purchased land, he would 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, viz., the
principal skin, for 5,0001., 55/., and for the subsequent skin,
6/. ; the duty for attested copies, 21. 10s. ; and small charges
of li. 155., making altogether about 651. 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
money immediately became productive. , Supposing the indivi-
dual lived for 30 years—
Mr ELPHINSTONE made some observation which was
inaudible in the Gallery.
The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER—WeII then,
suppose he lived for twenty years, and at the end of
the 20th year, and left his property to some person. What
would be ids position as to landed property ? He would have
paid in the 20 years 65/., and, added to this, would come the
legacy duty, altogether amounting to about 1301. or 140/. 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 landed
property. He found, from information ha had received
from persons able to make a calculation on the subject, that a
great portion of the legacy duty 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 that about 1,700,000/.lwas paid for legacy duty ;
of that sum, 1,100,0!,0/. 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 oat
a strong case in 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. lie had
received a letter from Devonport, which slated 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 con:plain 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 payinT
a duty, and the poor man be obliged to submit to its imposition ?
This. he said, wag an instance of class legislation owing to the
people not being represented in this House. Did the Right
Hon. 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. Hume) would admit that the Right Hon. Baronet
was in a difficult position, that he had hard task-masters over
him, and could not do as he pleased.—( Rear, hear.) His
Hon. Friend had alluded to the returns. Was it not scan-
d ilous to think that there should be from 40,000,000/. to
42,000,000/. 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 th-esame a-nouot of duty as personal property, they would
have from that source as much as 2,500,0001 per annum, and
if they could raise that turn 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 be an impartial Government, to act in this way. Befoee
they passed the Income-tax, let them inquire into this matter; and
betore they made a law to 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 support his Hon. Friend,
and lie did hope that he. would divide the House upon the
subject.
Mr. EWART said, that the Right Hon. Gentleman opposite,
in referring to landed property and personal property, had not
appeared to rememeer that landed property might be personal
property, though personal property could not be landed pro
perry. 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, disgrace:ul,
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 than 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

propsrtion of duty, the owners of the property would talc
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 a 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 capital, 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. Bastonet
boasted as a triumphant indication of his policy, was not pro-
duced by his measures, but by the general stagnation
of trade, &e. ; and he (Mr. W.) was sure th t
what he t'ien said should go before the puhlis,
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 mot on, 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, fos he would not snake the burdens borne by both
kinds of property equal. The second objection was, that the
amount isised for the revenue would bs very small. 'rue
Right Hon. Gentlerrian contended that personal property,
which was settled, should not be made liable to the legacy a:ld
probate duties. Now he (Lord J. Russell s could understand
an objection to taxes on the succession of property, but he
could not see why, if taxes were imposed on settled property,
they might not be made equal.—(Heas. ) If a tax on settled
property were -nften 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 nut 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 first 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-eax was passed, 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 snake those taxes be fairry levied, which would be a
great benefit t and he hoped this revision would be extended to

the stamp duties.
Sir R. PEEL said, the Hon. Gentleman who had lately
been returned to the House as Member for Montrose, like a
giant refreshed—( Laughter)-lilti 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 passed during his absence. The charges hitherto
made against him were, that he (Sir R. Peel) had delud
the agricultural interest by false promises, through which he
at first gained thci: confidence ; and it was added, that if lie
were no to appeal to the country, he would be, through the
indignation of those classes, left 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 Nlr. 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 onthat account.—(Laughter.) Now, these latter charges
consoled him for the absence of the Hon. Member for Mon-
trose—( Laughter)-e-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 to persuade the pub-
at large, that l.is measures had been dictated by no other
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
of society.--t Cheers.) dot he was surprised that the Hon.
Member for Montrose had not, during his absence, remembered
that in the course of the last session, he denounced a tax on
property as most unjust —(Mr. flume adverted to the Income-
tax )—tending to weigh down industry, and diminish the funds
of labour.
HUNIE 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.) Ile
holed that after he was reminded of this contrast, the Hon.
Member fur 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 I perhaps, then,
the object was to give him the 1,700,000/. in:addition to what
he (Sir Robert Peel) already asked for.—(Laughter and
cheers.) If so, then he 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
landed property of the country under Schedules A and
B, should be liable 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
was a good opening for improvements in it. But the 11011.
Gentleman should know that if he were to succeed in his motion
He would exempt from liability to the legacy or probate dutie.
all the large estates whieh were subject to settlements. But,
postponing the question mooted by the motion of the Hon.
Member f r the future consideration of the House, he (Sir 11.
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,
wag, on the whole, the best and safest method
which could he adopted to raise the 3,700,0001. expected from
it ; but he believed that the House would not affirm a motion
which world 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 arid
difficult subject, and if it should be decided that a modification
of the existing system should take place, ho trusted that the
Government which might then be in existence would suffi-
ciently have the confidence of the country to justify there
in entering upon that question before the whole
House, instead of sending it to a Select Committee.
Without expressinda. decided opinion on the necessity of re-ad-
justing the legacy and probate duties, he would esntent 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 themse!ves 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 negative, by a large majority, the proposition of
the Honourable Gentleman, and that they would
allow the Government to proceed with the consi-
deration of the measures they had brought forward
fur 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 Government hadsub-
mitted to the House. He should state, however, in a feu
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 D hi 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 prosperit%
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 1.
property-tax in which he did not altogether concur. He bar
his doubts whether it was now possible to plate 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 bees
made out for any particular tax, he should never be wanting it
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 t.
him (Mr. Ellice) to be impossible to impose a duty upon land
with settlement, and not to impose a duty upon land without
settlement. He should repeat, however, that he supported th
present motion, because he believed it was a step in the rigin
direction ; and it was evidently their duty to place the taxatio.
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 before 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 tentage 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 be some just objection taken to the wording of
the motion before the House, and he should therefore move
words, in addition to the
motion
asan m
as e
taxes which weigh most oppressively
-non the country."
Lord HOWICK. said that it seemed to he generally admitted
a ni
tdm thenent
stood—"t he following
low
Asa
ag
substitute for some of those
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 tin
motion of the Hon. Member for Lewes, even with the additior.
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 calk'
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 merelj
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 riot 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 exemp:
personal property from legacy duty, he might have supported
it, fur he considered the legacy duty as the most cruel of all
at a time of the deepest distress and affiietion, 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. ELPHIN STONE replied. He could not commit to
w:thdraw the motion—( Hear, hear)---but if theresolutioa were
carried, and a Bill would he founded upon it, it would be neces-
sary to introduce a clause subjecting both real and personalproperty to tin afloat of the legacy duty.

The House then divided, and there appeared—
For the motion
Against it 221
Majority against •••• 144
PORT NATAL.

On our admission to the gallery we found—
Colonel FOX on his legs, moving for co,pies or extracts from
any recent, official information received by her Majesty's
Government from the Cape of Goad 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 anv instructions that may have been
sent to the. Governor of the Cape of Good Hope on these sub-
jects by -her Majesty's Goverment.
Lard 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,
tii -ir families, and property. That emigration took place in
1557, and they had remained there ever since, and
.were now
endea'souring to declare themselves independent. Some of
the causes of their dissatisfaction 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 roc ignised as an independent State, but that was
proposition to which the Government could not listen, as
they were detertnined 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 beeomss
sensible of the error they had committed. His Gallant Friend
had asked whether the Government of this country would per.
nut 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 the papers 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 has' taken place.
lie 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 Boars, as her ,Majesty's Government did not admit them to
be so.

Lord .1. 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 among 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 proviou,ly.—( Hear.) A nether satisfactory eircum.-
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 kern
that would press more uoon them, and would be likely to
load to the settlement of the 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 Caw ?
Mr. HUNIE wished to know from the Noble Lord whether
Port Natal had been in the possession of tho English before
the Boers had located there ?
Lord STANLEY made some observations in an indistinct

tone, the purport of which we understood to be that Government
(lid 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),
he 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 garrison 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. RUSS r:LL—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 CANLEY said that he had stated that Port Natal
was part of the territory over which Great Britain claimed
sover, ignty, but it had not been occupied before they took pos-
session of it.
Colonel FOX said, that the Dutch East India Company hail
originally purchased the territory of the Dutch Government,
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 man who was said to have been, locked up in a stable.
and chained to the manger. He (Mr. Burroughes) hail
made inquiries into the matter, and had found that no cruelty
wha.ever 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.)
Ihe Honourable Member then read several documents to cor-
roborate hii 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
Sth day of April, 1842, with enclosures:"
The motion having been put,
Mr. 'l'. 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
tad 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 coin-
pieta 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 considered 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 shirt or shoes upon
him, when he jumped off his horse, and asked what he was doing?
and upon the man answering that he was doing nothing, anti
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 fo: his hawker's license, and the
person not being able to produce it, he took him into
custody as a vagrant, and chained him to the manger.
The man fled, because the owner of the manger came in and
relieved him from the imprisonment. He was afterward found
wandering in the streets 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 House in 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 he 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 begged 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
notices of motions on Tuesdays, after the 9th of May, whilst
the Income-tax and the tariff were under the consideration
of the House?
Sir R. 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, however, 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 Noble Lord thought that the House was now sufficiently
full. he would take the sense of the House now.
Lord .1. RUSSELL said that he did not think it ought to
be brought on at so late an hour.
Sir ROBERT PEEL then said that he would bring it on
on Thursday.