The Sun.
London, England, 1853-07-26 00:00:00

had been settled on himself, with a reversion to his son, I
and afterwards to his son's son, the noble earl would pay
6001. for his life interest, his son would do the same, and I
his son's s9n would pay 2,0001., or 10 per cent. upon the I

capitalisedincome.
Clauses 2 to 8 inclusive were agreed to almost without
discussion.

On clause 9,
The Earl of DERBY, following Earl PowiS, who was
scarcely audible, wished to be informed what was the in-
tention of her Majesty's Government with regard to corpo-
rations sole.
The LORD CHANCELLOR said cormations sole were
almost all ecclesiastical, and were not strictly subjects for
a succession tax. Instead of being paid a salary they were
paid by a real estate, which devolved upon one after
another. The hierarchy of the church and rectors and
vicars were successors of such a nature that it was con-
sidered impossible to bring them under the operation of
the bill.
Clauses 9, 10, and 11 were then agreed to.
After a few observations from the Earl of CLANCARTY,
clauses 12 to 21 inclusive were also agreed to.
On clause 22, which related to outgoings,
The Earl of MALMESBURY wished to know what was
intended by the term " necessary outgoings."
The Duke of ARGYLL said it was impossible to specify
in an act of Parliament the necessary outgoings on an es-
tate. It had been thought best, on the whole, to leave
such matters in the ordinary course. No doubt the usual
deductions would be allowed under the bill.

After a short conversation the clause was agreed to.
Clauses up to 26 were agreed to.
On clause 26, which relates to the duty on the value of

mines,
The Earl of DERBY said the clause was an impossible
one, because it was simply out of any man's power to ascer-
tain the value of a mine.
Earl GRANVILLE observed that the value of the mine
was to be ascertained according to the ordinary mode of
letting.
After a few words from Lord TRURO and the Earl of
DERBY,
The clause was agreed to, as were clauses up to 34.
On clause 34, which imposes the duty on the successor
to the fall amount of the property, although a part of it
might have been previously eaten up by encumbrances,
The Earl of DERBY said he was not going to move an
amendment on this clause, which would not be receivedby
their lordships, but he could not allow it to pass without
pointing out its manifest injustice. If a man succeeded to
an estate of 20,0001. a year, of which all but 5,0001. had
been anticipated and eaten up by the encumbrances of the
predecessor, he was taxed not on the 5,0001. which he did
receive, buti on the amount which he might receive but
did not' receive. If the property had been actually parted
with to the same amount, instead of being mortgaged, the
tax could not be levied, and,
therefore, it seemed to be the
grossest injustice to levy it when, to all intents and pur-
poses,_it was parted with as far as the successor was con-
cerned.
Earl GRANVILLE said that it was impossible to legis-
late so as to meet every possible case that might arise.
But if they once admitted the principle of exemptions like
this, it would be likely to lead to great evasion of the
duty. For instance, a man with an estate of the capital
value of 120,0001. might make a colourable mortgage of
100,0001. so that the duty world be paid only on 20,0001.
The Duke of NEWCASTLE said that a man may raise
money on the reversion even for legitimate purposes, in-
vesting it in trade, for instance, and under such circum-
stances, was he to be exempt although he might be getting
10 or 15 per cent. on the money so invested?
The Earl of DERBY said that in that case the duty
would be paid both on the money invested on the trade,
and on the property on which it was borrowed.
After a few words from Lord Truro, the Earl of Har-
rowby, Earl Granville, and the Earl of Alalmesbury,
The LORD CHANCELLOR said there was a bodicalled
the Reversionary Fund Society, whose business it was to
purchase up reversions and it was singular, if this clause
involved so much injustice, that not a single word of com-
plaint bad been heard from that body. (Hear.)
The (clause was then agreed to, as were the following
clauses up to clause 48.
On clause 49,
The LORD CHANCELLOR stated, in answer to Lord
Hardwicke, that the disclosing of confidential information
received under the provisions of this act, would be treated
as a misdemeanour. Allusion had been made to the case
of the Newcastle corporation losing 7,0001. aiyear, by the
production of their title deeds in a court of law ' • but the
fact was, they lost it because it never belonged to them.
After a conversation, in which the Earl of MALMESBURY,
Earl GRANVILLE, and other peers took part, the clause
was agreed to.
On clause 54,

The Earl of MALITESBURY wished to know why the
bill was to operate from the 19th of May. Was it the
Chancellor of the Exchequer's birthday? (Laughter.)
Earl GRANVILLE said a few words in reply, and the
clause was then agreed to.
The Earl of DERBY was understood to state, in the
confusion caused by most of the peers leaving the house,
that he should not press his amendment for restricting the
operation of the act to five years.
The remaining clauses were agreed to, after a valedictory
protest from the Earl of HARROWBY against the "injus-
tice " of the bill, which elicited a short reply from the
LORD CHANCELLOR and Lord TRURO.

The house then resumed, the bill was reported, and the
third reading fixed for a subsequent day.

COLONIAL CHURCH REGULATION BILL.
This bill was read a third time and passed.

MISSIONARY BISHOPS BILL.

The Bishop of OXFORD moved the second reading of
this bill. Its object was to authorise the placing of a
bishop at the head of the foreign missions of the Church
of England.
Earl Powis, the Earl of Malmesbury, the Bishop of Sa-
lisbury, and the Marquis of Salisbury, having expressed
their opinions on the bill,
The Earl of ABERDEEN expressed a fear that the bill
might lead to very serious inconveniences. At the same
time, the protection required for the bishops would be not
greater than for the missionaries.
After a few words from the Earl of MALMESBURY and
the Bishop of OXFORD, the bill was read a second time,
and ordered to be committed.

Their• lordships then adjourned, at 10 minutes to 12
o'clock.

HOUSE OF COMMONS--(YESTERDAY.)
The house resumed at six o'clock.

PETERBOB4OTJGH ELECTION.

Mr. BRIGHT moved, that in the matter of the Peter-
borough Election Petitions Committee, the parties have
leave to appear by themselves, their counsel, or agents.
Mr. WORTLEY, as chairman of the committee, was
quite willing that counsel should be heard, but it was ex-
tremely desirable that the committee should be enabled to
check the proceedings of counsel, so that the sittings might
not be so procrastinated by undue extension of examina-
tion and discussion on their part as to prevent the com-
mittee from reporting during the present session.
The SPEAKER said, that counsel, if appointed, must
be heard in the ordinary way.
Mr. WORTLEY appealed to the hon. member for Man-
chester to leave the matter in the hands of the committee,
who would be quite ready to call in counsel if the necessity
arose.

_
Mr. BRIGHT objected that the committee had not been
appointed according to what he understood to have been
the feeling of the house, pursuant to which, and upon the
Stamford precedent, he himself ought to have been ap-
pointed a member.