The Express.
London, England, 1853-06-11 00:00:00

THE EXPRESS, SATURDAY EVENING, JUNE 11, 1853.

DUKE OF MEDFORD RESTITUTION BILL.
This bill vu read a third tins and pared.
Taal: lordships adjoanied at eight o'clock.

ROUSE OF 0311MONS..—Fm0AT, Jums 10.
The SPEACER took the chair shortly before 4 o'clock.
PRIVATE BUSINESS.
THIRD READINOB.—Cork and Bandon Railway, Eut
Kent Railway, Gorbals Gravitation Water (No. 2), St.
Helen's Canal and Railway, Warrington and Aitrincham
Railway (Stockport), Halifax Waterworks and Improve-
ment, Shipley and Bramley Road, Spalding Improvement,
West Harptry Road, Whitechapel Improvement; Bills.
SECOND READlNO.—Battersea Park Bill.

wit alt was given by men as an act of self-denial
out of their own means, which they would otherwise enjoy,
end that of which they were permanently the givers by law
which wu not In fact a gilt at all, but was so touch taken
from their Min. He had now done with corporations sg.
gregate. but a most important question, and one of conside
nails difficulty arose in consequence of a principle of ear
law by which persons under the denomination of corpora-
tions sole held property. These corporations sole be be-
lieved consisted generally,. fur thoush there were excep.
tions, they were of an insignificant character, of the clergy
of the country, bishops, and the incumbents of parishes.
The question arose, ought the property possessed by
these corporations sole to be regarded as corporation pro-
peer, and on that account made liable to the tax, or ought
it to be regarded as a provision made for the discharge of
certain official duties. These two views of the corporate
character, and of the official character, met at this particu-
lar p, int, and the whole question turned on this, would
they hold that they were corporations according to law and
say, because they were corporations they were sub-
ject to the tax, or would they, on the other
hand say, the revenues were merely payments
for official duties, and that, therefore, a clergyman on ac-
cession to his rectory should no more be charged with the
tat than a judge on his entrance into Westminster Hall was
charged,? The view of the government was that the pro-
perty of ecclesiastical officers, though they were in law cor-
porations sole, ought to be regarded as a provision
for the discharge of certain duties', and that, there-
fore, the acquisition of these onkel ought not to be
taxed as a succession. But there was another and a good
reason, and one he was afraid rather in the nature of a
grievance, for arriving at this conclusion, and that was the
present provision of the law which entailed a heavy ex-
pense on the acquisition of these offices. Whether on that
ground or on the other ground, he had very little doubt the
house would be of opinion that this large portion of eccle-
siastical property, which was vested in clergymen as corpo-
rations sole, ought net to be regarded as corporation pro-
perty, and ought not to be subject to a tax on successions
any more than they would tax the succession to the office of
Lord Chancellor, or of any of the judges. There
was only one other point he had to name. There
were certain other classes of men, who, although
not corporations in the view of the law, yet
they ehoult! view as corporations for the purposes of
this act, namely, bodies of trustees, under whatever name,
who were actual holders and administrators of property for
the use of individuals through whose hands property was
continually transmitted without any charge on death. The
bill would be so framed that bodies of that kind would he
regarded as being virtually corporations, and property in
their hands would be treated as if it were the property of
corporations. He did not know that he need detain the
committee any further. It would be obviously more con-
venient that the details should be reserved ; but, as re-
spected the principle, it was material that the house should
know what was the plan of the government as regarded
corporations, and therefore be had thought it right to offer
this explanation.
Sir F. KELLY asked whether the bill with regard to
corporations would form part of the bill before the house, or
would be treated inn separate bill, whether the corpora-
tions to be liable to the tax included municipal corporations,
and whether the measure would affect the property of the
corporation of the city of London ?
The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER said the bill
would not make any distinction between the corporation of
the city of London ;and other municipal corporations. He
thought he bad stated that municipal corporations would be
brought under the action of this plan in the same manner
asunder the income tax—that was,they would be liable to
pay the tax on their realised property, but not on the re-
venue which they derived from the rates. With regard to
the other question, the view of the government was, that it
would be decidedly more convenient that they should deal
with this subject in a separate bill, because the whole of the
present bill was founded on the idea of succession as the
consequence of death. Be hoped to be in a condition to
lay the bill on the table of the house in a few days.
Mr. BIALINS suggested that it would have been a more
simple plan to have made the property tax 3} per cent.
instead of 3.

Sir J. WALSH wished it to be distinctly understood
that in acquiescing in:the arrangement which had been come
to, it was on the distinct understanding that they auented
to the second reading of the bill, as it were, pro forma;
I that they were not to be understood is any way as assenting
to the bill, but that they would come to the discussion on
Monday as completely free as if they had come to it this
evening.
Mr. HUME asked whether it was intended that the pro-
perty of the country should be registered, in order that go-
' vernment might know when a change took place.
The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER said that
was no doubt an important question, and one that ought to
' be well discussed in the debates on this bill ; but when a
question was put to him on a former night, whether it was
intended that the Registration of Assurances Bill should be
pressed,in order that it might become the basis of this mea-
sure, he answered in the negative, and he had now to re-
peat that government did not think it necessary that there
should be any registration of property for the purposes of
this bill. Their belief was that the tax might ba collected
without any general registration of property ; and, there-
fore, whatever course parties might think fit to take with
reference to the registration of assurances, it would not be
proposed in the bill before the house.
Mr. WALPOLE said in the bill before the house there
was a blank left for the sum below which parties were to be
exempt from paving the succession tax. He asked whether
a similar provision would be made in reference to the pro-
perty of the smaller charities.
The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER must con-
fess that the point of exemption, the minimum point at
which the tax was to be laid, had not occupied his atten-
tion. It was a matter of detail, and he was not sure that in
the case of corporations any exemption would be right. He
would rather take time to answer.

Mr. HEADLAM asked whether any charge was to be
imposed on the property of the ecclesiastical commission.
The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER said he
thought they fell under the description of the revenues of
corporations sole. These revenues were distributed by the
commissioners in aid of official provisions, and would not
be liable to the tax.

Mr. HUMS ;Flied whether incases where the dissenters
had established funds for the payment of their ministers in
I part, they would come under the same provisions, because
it would appear that these funds were for the payment of
services exactly in the same manner u the revenues of the
Church of England were.
The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER replied
that wherever there was an endowment for the purposes of
any religious community other than the established church,
which was assimilated by a legal provision to the ease of the
corporations sole, the same benefit precisely would be ex-
tended to that endowment, quite irrespective of the question
what was the religious denomination to which it was at-
tached. With regard to funds held by trustees, he was
afraid there would be difficulty in working it out, but they
should attempt to come as nearly as they could to the esta-
blishment of the principle he had described, namely, that
where the provision was bona fide for the discharge of cer-
tain official duties, there they would be exempt.
Mr. HUME said in some cases funds were provided for
the purposes of education, the payment of schoolmasters
and others.

The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER said there
was no general provision for exempting funds for the pur-
pose of education ; he would explain why enotter time.
The bill was then read a second time.