The Press.
London, England, 1858-05-22 00:00:00

THE PRESS, MAY 22, 1858.

light of this construction of the proclamation, and
he repelled the objection of Lord J. Russell to the
reference made in the despatch to the annexation of
Oude. He defended the policy of the despatch, not,
he said, in the letter, but in spirit ; if the other side
disputed that policy, he called upon them to bring
the question to an issue upon a distinct motion, and
try whether it was condemned by the house and by
the country.
On the motion of Mr. COLLIER, the debate was
again adjourned till Tuesday.
The remaining orders having been gone through
and the motions disposed of, the house adjourned at
twenty five minutes to one o'clock.

HOUSE OF LORDS-TUESDAY.

OF THE HOUSE.

The Earl of DERBY gave notice that on Friday he
should move the adjournment of the house till Mon-
day, the 31st of May.
The Stamp Duty on Draughts Bill and the Con-
solidated Fund Bill were read a second time, and
their lordships then adjourned.

HOUSE OF COMMONS—Tuzanky.
THE OATHS BILL.

Lord J. RUSSELL brought up the report of the
managers (including Baron Rothschild) appointed
to conduct the conference with the Lords on the
subject of their amendments of the Oaths Bill.

LORD CANNING'S PROCLAMATION.
Sir D. NORREYS inquired of the Chancellor of the
Exchequer whether the Governor-General of India
had sent home a copy of the proclamation actually
issued after the taking of Lucknow; whether it
differed from the proposed proclamation before the
house, and whether the Governor-General had given
to the Home Government any other explanation of
the reasons for issuing the proclamation than were
contained in Mr. Edraonstone's letter to the Chief

of Oude.

This inquiry provoked others, and the result of the
replies was that, according to the Chancellor of the
Exchequer; a copy of the proclamation actually issued
had not been received, nor any official information
that any proclamation had been issued, although of
the fact there seemed to be no doubt.. He. stated
that three private letters had been received from
Lord Canning on Saturday, which, although con-
taining no explanation respecting the proclamation,
referred to occurrences in previous letters which had
not reached the Government.

Lord PALMERSTON, in the absence of Mr. V. Smith,
stated that no information upon the subject had
reached that gentleman.

Sir J. Pala NaTox stated that he had seen an
officer, just arrived from India, who stated that the
proclamation had " arrived" at Lucknow.
Mr. CRAWFORD inquired whether Colonel Franks
had not stated that the proclamation bad been
issued in compliance with instructions from this
country.
Sir J. PAKINOTON zeplied that Mr. Crawford had
been misinformed, but Colonel Franks had stated
that he had heard a rumour to that effect, but the
impression was altogether erroneous.
Mr. Dth.t.witN asked the Chancellor of the Ex-
chequer whether, in the event of Mr. Cardwell's
motion on the Governor-General of India being
negatived, the Government would support his
amendment.

The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER replied that
he saw nothing in the amendment to which he could
not give his willing assent.

THE DERBY•DAY.
On the motion of Captain VIVIAN, it was agreed
that the house at its rising should adjourn until
Thursday.

THE PROBATE DUTY.

Mr. W. Wm.-Emits moved a resolution, that real
property and impropriate tithes should pay the same
probate duty as that now payable on personal pro-
perty ; and that property belonging to corporations,
universities, colleges, bishoprics, and deans and
chapters should pay probate and legacy duties equi-
valent to those now levied on personal property.
The motion was seconded by Mr. HADFIELD, and
supported by Mr. Amocx.
Mr. GLADSTONE gave a short explanation in reply
to a remark made by Mr. HADFIELD.
Mr. BRIGHT pointed out the inequality between
the succession duty and the legacy duty, to the dis•
advantage of the inheritors of personal property,
and urged that one and the same principle should
be applied to land and to all other species of pro-
perty.
The CuoicELLon off the EXCHEQUER, in reply to
Mr. Williams,,explained the difficulties that would
lie in the way At,vm attempt to repair any injustice
in the operatiq9:9thhe legacy and succession duties,
supposing any,tmustice existed. lie calculated that
Cleo
Pr94oi444efu.kt,of tririnK corporations liable to
the euccciimiqp44oo mou,4 pfp4ce not quite 4,500/.
.4% leiir•AleMiAß,b4446(4l9o4,,, <
eeroidui. mipircp4.ontplilly with the Clian •
unequer. lie wittisticatihion that,