On this page

• Text (1)

  Note: This text has been automatically extracted via Optical Character Recognition (OCR) software. The text has not been manually corrected and should not be relied on to be an accurate representation of the item.

  • 

    48* __ _ 484i ____——-—

• Transcript

  • Note: This text has been automatically extracted via Optical Character Recognition (OCR) software. The text has not been manually corrected and should not be relied on to be an accurate representation of the item.

    Additionally, when viewing full transcripts, extracted text may not be in the same order as the original document.

    Imperial Parliament. —-?—Ilfqnday, May I...

    ——^ Shd ^ wto'StSd ^ e conference . On their return Tord Johv 'Russell reported that the reasons for JStreeinff with the Lords' amendments had been dXSS ^ o the Lord s , and had been left for-the * consideration . OITPK rROCIxAMATION . Sir Denham Norreys asked the Chancellor _ of the Exchequer whether the Governor-General of Imlialjad sent home a copy of the Proclamation , addressed to the ' SJbSd inhabitants of Oude , which > vas _ actualy Ssued after the taking of Lucknow ; whether it differed £ any respect from the proposed Proclamation , a copy 7 i _ i ? Li . \?~ a wn Inirl V > efore the House ; and whethei of ' had

    " to - GS ^ Tr-G ^ erai India given to the Government of England , or to the India Board , any other ex-Sanation of such Proclamation , or the reasons which had led to or justified its issue , than such as were con- . Sled . in the letter addressed by Mr . Edmondstone to . | it" o ^ . ^ # . o « , tn tk Chief Commissioner of Oude ,

    dated March 3 , and which had been laid before the , House . . j . » . + v . The Chanceixor of the Exchequer said that the Government had not received from , the Governor-General a conv of the Proclamation addressed to the chiefs and inhabitants of Oude which was actually issued after the taking of Luckno ^ , and he could not therefore officially say whether there was any difference between the Proclamation issued and that which hadjjeen laid on the table of the House . With regard to the second question , he had to inform the hon . baronet that the Government ] received last Saturday three private letters from Lord Canning , which had been referred to in the debate on the previous night . There were references in these letters to the Proclamation ; but the previous letters , in which the Governor-General gave the promised explanation , ¦ ¦ _ ¦ . — ¦ -. , ¦» . _ , » A ^ iim * otoromonrc ; . tnerti weic ¦ gi

    and in which prot > at > iy »»« -. v-.-- ~ , which seemed to be referred to in the letters received , had never reached the Government . . Sir Denham Nobbeys wished to know whether the Government had received positive information that such a Proclamation had been actually issued . —1 he CHANckllok of the Exchequer said he had not reeeivecL such information from the Governor-General , hut he had positive information that the Proclamation had be Lord p A ^ MEKSTON ( on behalf of Mr . Tern on Smith , who was not present ) said that the late President of the Board of Control , had received no private letters Irom Lord Canning as to the Proclamation about to be issued . Such information as had not reached the present Government had not reached the late Government either . The Chancellor of the Exchequer ( in answer to some observations which Lord Palmerston had made , to ., _ . xr .. i *** tvt ^ TViQi-npU Viad seemed to convey an tutu ^— — i

    . „ XnO cLLcvL * a » -w . ..- —~— — « insinuation , " which some members appeared readily to accept } said that he did not make , nor intend to make , any insinuation . Had he intended to make a charge , he would have done so in language not to be mistaken ; but some members were very quick to believe that insinuations were intended .-Sir John Shelley / asied whether the Government had received any positive information of any Proclamation having been issued— The Chancellor of the Exchequer said he had before stated that the Government were in possession of many letters which spoke of the Proclamation having beon issued , and of the consequences of it ; but they had not received any official information from the Governor-General on the subject .-Sir John Pakington informed the House that , within the last half-hour , he had seen a naval officer who arrived on Monday from Lucknow ,

    and who stated that Sir Colin Campbell had expresseu to liim his opinion of the Proclamation , which had arrived at Lucknow . —Sir Charles Wood naked whether thov were to understand that the Proclamation sirnply had arrived , or whether it had been isBued . —bir J own Pakington said that Sir Colin Campbell ' s expression ¦ waa , that tho Proclamation had arrived at Lucknow . Lord A . Ya . nb Tempest wished to hear from , the riglit hon . member for Northampton if he had any objection to the production of those parts of the letter he to

    had received from Lord Canning wlncn related puutu matters . —Mr . Vkrnon Smith said he had stated to tho House tho substance of tho letter . Ho did not communicate it to the present Government , because ho did not consider it important . —Lord A . Vank Tempest remarked , that that wa 3 no answer to his question , Vluch ho then repeated . —Mr . Ykrnon Smith sai I ho had an objection to produce tho letter . vkaw d

    Later in tuo evening , mr . » u « u ««« * " «•< - - ~ mour was in circulation that tho Proclamation of Lord Canning had been issued in consequence , of instructions sent out from , this country , and ho asked tho late President of tho Board of Control whether such rumour was founded on fact . —Mr . Viuinon Smith replied tliat ho had already stated that tho first information he had received of tho Proclamation was in tho lettor which reached him a few days ngo from Lord Canning . —Sir John Pakinqton said he had had a conversation on tlve previous day with Colonul Franks , who spoke with tlio groatcBt delicacy with regard to communications between himself and Lord Cunning , but nssurod him that tho rumour alluded to by Mr . Crawford was altogether ? erroneous .

    THE 1 UD 1 . V DEBATE . Mr Dillwyn asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether in ' the event of Mr Cardwell ' s motion on the Governo ' r-General of India being negatived the Gcvernrnent would support his amendment .-The Chancellor ' 1 the Exchequer replied that he saw nothing in . the amendment to which he could not give Ins willing Se Having made an appeal to Mr . Locke King to taive his motion on Thursday night in or . er that the discussion on the vote of censure might go-on ,- that hon . geSman consented to give way , on the understanding that another night should be provided for him . THE DERBY DAY . On the motion of Captain Vivian , it was agreed that ; the House , on its rising , should adjourn to lhursday , m : vji ... i ,. tun . members misht attend the Derby .

    IJIUCl . UH *** ** v « . » " —— ; - •_» , REAL PROPERTY . Mr . William Williabis moved a resolution , that real r » £ iX ^»? 3 ^ ?^ ! and that property belonging to corporations , universities , ——

    colleees , bishoprics , ana uean » «»»« wy ~~ , - - * - . * probfte and legacy duties equivalent to those now levied on personal property .-The motion was seconded by Mr . Hadfield , and supported by Mr . Alcock . —Mr . Gladstone ( alluding to a remark which lad been made by Mr : Hadaeld ) said that , to the best of his collection the opinion of the Government in 1853 was , that the imposition of the succession duty was . a fair and equitable adjustment of the taxes on different kinds of pro-| PeSlr Bright pointed out the inequality between the succession duty and the legacy duty-an ^ quality which operated to the disadvantage of the ^ inheritors of personal property . « Since 1841 , we had been making some approach towards justice in this matter . Unfortunately , within the last five years , the country lad not w . < JU . lv in its senses ; and , vhile we had been

    i plunged into a career of extravagance unknown tor tne fast forty vears , we had become much less careful in all questS of this nature . He hopecV that we had now ? eached the worst period , and were about to have some improvement . He would make one observation to the I CnanceSr of the Exchequer . Possibly , the right honourable member for Buckinghamshire might continue to occupy his office longer than many peop le thought ; but next year , instead of seeing him bring forward a nicely Smmed budget , he ( Mr . Bright ) hoped to see 1 him try something broader and greater with respect to this matter of taxation . ( Hear , hear . ) There . vere two tlungs he could do , in which the public would certainly support him—a thorough revision of the expenditure by which , in many branches , he could save large sums ; and at the same time , with regaid to this question ^ taxation on property , to show to the House that he desired to make Serf ' * little fairer than he had hitherto . He ( Mr . irom *^^

    | BrichO had great Hope um ngumu" . e . > ... ~ - partv He had watched them for fifteen years , and he was free to admit that they had made more progress in all these questions tlian any other party in the House . They were not like the men they were since they had got -through the com question . " I Sir 31 Willoughby . said that the hon . gentleman I had entirely lost sight of the fact that by far tlie greater proportion of local taxation fell upon what were called hereditaments , or , -in other words , upon real estate . — Sir John Walsh said that the supporters of the motion always based it on the alleged inequality which subsists between one species of property and another . The real objection to this description , of taxation is an objection of principle , which equally applies to funded , personal , and landed property . These taxes are taxes r : * . „! ,. k ;^ . i » in thnir incidence are most op-«

    | tipUll vlEJJlUl ' j ' »» v * »> - ------ pressivo and onerous . , Tho Chancellor op the 3 !> xchequkr said that equality of taxation is almost as difficult to attain as equality of mental and bodily strength . With regard to tho particular class of taxation under discussion , the only way the object could bo attained is by repealing the probate duty and raising the legacy and succession duties . By the ropcal of the succession duty there would bo a loss of 1 , 200 , 000 ? ., and tho revenue from , the legacy __ j „„„ : ' , i . * ua ia nhmifc 1 . 800 . 000 / . ; so that to

    effect tho hon . member ' s object they must increase the legacy and succession duties from ten per c « nt . to sixteen per cent , and a fraction . Under these circumstances , ho could not give his support to the motion . Sir G . C . Lewis concurred generally with tho Chancellor of the Exchequer . Ho was of opinion that , allowing for deductions and for tho expenses of hiigation , the nrnhnhNitv wn « t . hflt . if corporations were subjected to

    tho succession duty , tho balance would be ngainst the public—Mr . Hisnlby , in reply to Mr . Bright , observed that there aro anomalies on both sides , and that , ll the question were looked into , it would b « found that land does not pay loss than it » proper share . —Mr . Lookic Kino supported the motion . —Sir James Graham waa not satisiicd with tho result of Mr . Disraeli ' s calculation , in which ho suspected some error . Ho could not understand how subjecting corporate bodies to the succession duty could produce no more than 4 C 00 / . u yenr . —Upon a division , tho motion was negatived by 172 to G 8 . NKW HILLS . Mr . Sheridan obtained leave to bring in a bill to

    ¦ : : > regulate Insurance and Assurance Institutions , and to ' : s arrange for their incorporation . 4 Mr Bland moved for leave to bring in a bill to repeal i so much of the Act of the lOtli of George IV ., cap . 34 , as § 1 relates to conspiracies and solicitations to murder in | ' ' i Ireland . His object was to assimilate the law of the -c 1 two countries ; and he stated , as the result of his expe- ; \ * rience , that the severity , of the Irish law operates to " < prevent convictions . —Mr . Wiiiteside opposed the mo- ¦ i tion and recom 111 ended Mr . IJland to withdraw it , — After a short discussion , the motion was withdrawn . Mr . Slaney rtoved for leave to introduce a bill to enable or facilitate grants of land to be made near popu- ; lous places for the use and regulated recreation of adults , > V and ' as plavgrounds for poor children . —The motion was ! seconded by Mr . Bbiscoe . —Mr . Walvolu did not opnose it . and leave was given . ¦

    MANNING THE NAVY . Sir Charles INapier moved " that an humble address be presented to her Majesty , praying that sbewUl ; be graciously pleased to appoint a commission to inquire ¦ I into the best means of manning the navy and improving " : ¦ .- »_ nnn , ^ i . ml > nf with a vie-w to reduce its expenditure

    | -without impairing its efficiency . " Having alluded to j various reforms in tho navy which he had effected ia : ; former vears after long and tedious struggles , he con- . > sidered ' the question of providing men . 'I he countrj- J i would not submit to impressment ; yet tins-must be « . - } . sorted to , unless some other system were devised . He : ; Uould raise the petty officers ' pay ; he would give flu * ; the advantages of education ; and there should be pit . %$ . motion by merit . He would also provide * liberal ptn- | sion for servitude . The continuance service had failed . g The men ought to be entered for five years ; and t % | 1 should have frequent leave of absence . ^ hen te en- | tered the navy , the men never saw the land . Many . « j a man , " said Sir Charles , amidst much laughter , had 5 been at sea for twenty years without once seeing a woman or speaking to one of the fair sex . This is m- % to ku

    tolerable . VYe ought nave a siiiiunng «» v ; « ,. •> as a standing army . Louis Napoleon might not intend li to invade England ; but he might not be Ins own n : master . "He has an army of 545 , 000 men . Vhy | such a force when he is menaced by no one ? \ Nhile j -we have forty-two screw steamers , the French "have | I fortv . They can lay their hand at ¦ any moment on | 70 , 000 trained men ; and , if a quarrel arose—and we | pretty nearly had one the other day , and he -was do ; ? sure it was " quite over : yet—France is armed at all p points , and he would ask the House in what position | England would be ? In . what position should we be it . \{ we received information that fourteen French slaps had | arrived at Cherbourg , anil that 40 , 000 men liadalso arrived bv rail ? What could we do ? We ha - ve w .,.-means of defence whatever . " The country ought cet- , tainly to be put in an efficient state of defence , lie did not want to have an extravagant fleet—that is not 1 1 _ . 1 ; .-+. Krt . # iAc < : ** nf 1 * r » lim » n ciif * 1 i n flopt-ttS WOHill UUb Xlt ? % *

    TlGCvOSilJ-j i UV < QIIUU * . vr ****»» - ' u * . »» - -- enable us to go to sea confident of victory . Admiral Duhcombh moved as an amendment , ' Him a select committee be appointed to inquire into tie best means of manning the navy , and of improving its management , with a view to reduce its expenditure ¦ without impairing its . efficiency . " ' Ho agreed in the object which the gallant Admiral liad in view ; but it could be better accomplished through the medium of a committee . If the money voted in the Estimates were properly applied , they could have a much better system of manning tho navy , and this could be done without increased expenditure . After some rather desultory discussion ( in wlmli W . Lindsay , Admiral Walcott , Lord Clarence 1 ' . ^ ' > and Mr . Uuntinck , concurred in tlie necessity of i « - n ,, irvV Sir John Pakington reminded the House tli ;«

    the greater part of the speech of Sir Charles IN 11 pier v «> directed precisely to the same topi < : s as those which lie ( Sir John ) had brought before the House one month ago , when moving the Navy Estimates . Already tliey niw more ships and men available than they had at the t » ne of moving the Estimates , and he did not dcapair 01 putting tho manning of tho navy permanently upon « better footing . Tho mode of doing so h l \ f" ' . mate subject for inquiry , with tlie view cftpeciaii ) nscortaininc- how the mercantile mnrine can tie mH ' 1

    more useful in contributing to the defence of the countr , No unncceasary delay should take place in tho apF > J |' ment of the commission , and , once appointed , tnoy i'o sit whenever they liked , lie could not consent , no « - ever , to tho second part of the motion ; but nsaurcu Ilouso that tho present JJoard of Admirnlty arc neglectful of tho subject . m . Lord Pai . bibr . ston preferred a commisnioii to a < - i

    mittec , and- suggested that Sir Charles Napier » »^ accept the conccsHion offered by Sir John 1 ' iuong u Sir Chakmch Nai'iicr took thia mlvicc , and the moi , in its modiiicd form , -vvan agreed to . THIS RATKVAYKRS OK IRICLAND . rri iurs . Mr . GitoaAN moved that tho ILouao sliouW . , 0 day resolve itself into 11 committee to ^'"" j , . ^ n ^ l AddreHS to Lor Majesty , praying that she wil «» - I f 0 to givo directions that tho ratopayers of llOlMI 1 1 TVilioved from one-half of tho oxponaou of tho «»» 1 " Kx sion of tho valuation . —Tho Ciianokm . ou 01- • t )) Bl I ciiKQiiicn said ho could not «»» cnt to u «»» " ^ ' uU . ' 1 would affect tho Consolidated Fund without m "'

    48* __ _ 484i ____——-—

    48 * __ _ 484 i ____—— - —

    ¦¦« THE LEADER . __ U ^*^ II ^ LM :

• Citation
  • Leader (1850-1860), May 22, 1858, page 4, in the Nineteenth-Century Serials Edition (2008; 2018) ncse-os.kdl.kcl.ac.uk/periodicals/l/issues/cld_22051858/page/4/