The Sun.
London, England, 1853-07-29 00:00:00

duty once. The imposition of the succession duty in
the case referred to involved an entirely new principle.
The LORD CHANCELLOR—It is exactly the same
as it is under the legacy duty.
Lord BEAUMONT doubted this ; but there was one
advantage iu the clause—it cut both ways ; a man suc-
ceeding his brother in property left by their father would
only pay duty as a son. Still, as it was contrary to the
principle of the bill, and had a retrospective operation,
he thought it would have been better in all cases to
regulate the duty by the relationship of the immediate
predecessor. It would also have had the effect of obvi-
ating the necessity of looking into deeds. No evil could
result from the adoption of the amendment, except some
little delay in the passing of the bill. He entertained
some other objections to the measure, but did not think
them of sufficient weight to dwell upon. He was glad
to see real and personal property placed on the same
footing in reference to succession ; but he should have
preferred a much more sweeping measure. He would
have repealed the present legacy duties, done away with
the graduated scale, and have made all property pay
alike-2 or 21 per cent. on succession. Where a stranger
succeeded to property, and had to pay 10 per cent., the
burden was most grievous, and he probably might be
less prepared to meet it than a son succeeding to his
father.
Lord BERNERS referred to the evidence given before
their lordships' committee on the burdens on land, and
contended that real property was already unjustly bur-
dened. He instanced the stamp duties and the land-
tax; the latter of which was most unequal in different
parts of the country. Originally, by the statute of Wil-
liam and Mary, it was 4s. in the pound on all land ; in
those cases where it had not been redeemed, the burden
was now very unequal. The noble lord enumerated
some other "special burdens" on land, which by a pecu-
liar mode of calculation he made to amount to 19 mil-
lions sterling per annum.
Earl GRANVILLE said the subject of burdens on
land was too large a question to be discussed on that
occasion. It had been assumed all along by the opposi-
tion that this bill would impose as large a duty on land
as on personalty ; but it appeared that the amount de-
rived from land would only be about 50 per cent, of that
from personal property. He did not think that the pro-
posal of Lord Beaumont for a uniform rate of 2 per cent.
would be very favourably received by those who com-
plained of the special burdens on land. It was a fair
estimate that two-thirds of the lanled property would
only pay 1 per cent, under this bill. On the other points
the noble lord had answered his own objections. (Hear.)
In framing a measure of this kind it was necessary to
adopt one of two principles—either to make each suc-
cessor pay according to the relationship of his immediate
predecessor, or of the person from whom he derived the
property by deed. Whatever may be the merits of the
two principles, it was certain that more money would
have been derived had the Government adopted the for-
mer one ; and though the principle adhered to in the
bill might in one or two cases act hardly upon indivi-
duals, it was most favourable to the great majority of
persons possessing land. Instead of paying 2 per cent.
as succeeding to one another, brothers would only pay 1
per cent, as deriving from their father ; and that was an
immense advantage to the landed interest. (Hear.)
Whatever hardships might occur under this bill, the
same existed, but to ,a much more severe extent, under
the Legacy Duty Acts.
The Earl of WICKLOW said it was quite clear that
the object of the noble lord opposite had been to defeat
the bill altogether, or many of these amendments would
have been proposed in committee at the proper time.
He admitted that this was a most complicated measure,
full of contradictory and oppressive provisions, and he
was satisfied that in a subsequent session a bill would
have to be brought in to remove its defects and render it
more palatable to the community.
The Marquis of SALISBURY denied that the object
of the opponents of the measure had been to defeat it.
All that they wanted was to remove many of its glaring
inconsistencies, and their lordships were decidedly to
blame for not entertaining many of the reasonable amend-
ments that had been proposed to them.
The bill was then passed.
BILLS ADVANCED A STAGE.
The Registrar of Meetings Bill and the Stamp Duties
Bill were read a second time, and ordered to be com-
mitted.
The Spitalfields and Shoreditch Improvement Bill and
the Missionary Bishops Bill were read a third time, and
passed.
The Parish Vestries (No. 2) Bill, the Entails (Scot-
land) Bill, the Custom Duties Bill, and the Dublin Par-
liamentary Registration Bill, were passed through com-
mittee.
ECCLESIASTICAL COMMISSION.—EPISCOPAL

INCOMES.
The Bishop of SALISBURY said he rose to move
for certain papers relative to his see, and in so doing to
make a short statement which it was painful to hira to
have to make, as it might appear of purely personal
concern. He had hoped that when he had stated some
time since that he had accepted a fixed income of 5,0001.
a year in place of the episcopal income, which had
averaged for seven years previously 6,7091. he had said
all that was necessary on the subject. But it appeared
that an impression had gone abroad, and had been in-
dustriously propagated, that he had made a good bar-
gain with the commissioners, having retained the full
income of his see during a series of years when the re-
ceipts were large, and having relinquished it only when
he had forseen that the receipts would necessarily fall off.
It was his object to show that this statement was directly
contrary to the fact. He had spoken to his right rev.
brother (the Bishop of Oxford), and had said to him that
he should not have been disposed to make the offer
to the commissioners had it not been that for the 14
years that had elapsed since his possession of the see the
surplus of its income had been large, and that it was
almost sure to be equally large for the time to come—
(The Bishop of Oxford—Hear, hear.)—and that, there-
fore, he was not disposed to subject the Church to the
injury she might sustain through the imputation which
would be cast upon him if he adopted a different course.
He spoke in the presence of the noble earl (Earl of
Chichester) who was a member of the commission, and
also in the presence of another noble lord who had a seat
at the board, and with both of whom he had gone over
the figures, and to both of whom he could appeal to con-
firm his statements. Indeed, he was able to read the
following letter he had received from the noble earl :
" Whitehall-place, July 26, 1853.
"Dear Bishop of Salisbury,—You may probably wish
me to state in writing what I said to you in a recent con-
versation on the subject of your agreement with the eccle-
siastical commissioners in 1851.
" That arrangement was at the time considered by us to
be an advantageous one for the common fund, and conse-
quently could scarcely be, as had been stated, a pecuniary
gain to yourself.
"An inspection of the septennial returns, and of the
state existing leases upon lives, clearly shows that there
was reasonable ground for expecting that the seven years
commencing with 1851 would yield an aggregate income at
the least equal to that of the preceding period.
" Indeed, I have no hesitation in saying that you were
quite justified in the expectation entertained by you in
1851; that the period then commencing would be more
productive than the former one.
" It was with those expectations, and on the earliest
opportunity which the law afforded, that yon proposed to
put yourself under the now act, and to receive a fixed in-
come of 5,0001. a-year, and no more.'
" I am sincerely yours,
(Signed) " CHICHESTER."
" The Lord Bishop of Salisbury."
This letter must be so satisfactory that it would be use-
less to go into details. (Hear, hear.) The right rev.
prelate concluded by moving for the papers he referred
to :—" A return of the gross and net amount of the
annual income received by the Bishop of Salisbury in
respect of his see, for the years 1851 and 1852 ; and of
all payments made by him to the ecclesiastical commis-
sioners, or received from them, during that time ; also
a return of all sums received in the way of fines upon
renewal of leases for lives during the incumbency of the
present bishop, distinguishing the years in which such
fines were received ; also a return of the average
amount of fines or renewals of leases for lives, from 1837
I to 1850 inclusive ; also a like average from 1844 to 1850
inclusive ; also a return of leases for lives on which
lives are now vacant, the age of the lives in such leases
respectively, and of the amount of fines received on the
last occasion of the renewal of the same ; and also a
return of the leases for years of the see of Salisbury,
distinguishing the years in which the same will be re-
newable respectively, and the amount of the fine re-
ceived on the last occasion when each lease was re-
newed."
The Earl of CHICHESTER said, as a member of the
ecclesiastical commission, he had not only no objection
to the production of those returns, but should rejoice at
their production, being persuaded that they would con-
vince any fair-minded man that the insinuations thrown
out against the right rev, prelate had been unfounded.
At the time of the arrangement alluded to he (the Earl
of Chichester) had been fully satisfied that it would be
for the benefit, not of the.bishop, but of the board; and
he was also convinced that the right rev. prelate must
have anticipated that such would be the case, and that
a larger income would be received from the see duTig
the present septennial period than the preceding piaerdiaotd.
The LORD CHANCELLOR said he felt it thhat
the
to declare, in justice to the right rev.
law on the subject had been very much misunderstood
prelate,
and misrepresented. It was formerly proposed that the
bishops should take the sees with the optiox n
e ofd
sum out of
paying
the
ecclesiastical commissioners a certain fi
made to operate during the c?
hpisr.(tAheuLenortdo
the income of the same. But tlhatinacia;manhgeeomoyenotf wasthe
second •
hbishopad ne ;p
eandwe whetherrte alt e r itit wasen
efwotirrhto
nnv
ig,ieaslsyb
accepted.en efit or not, h
Whate
impressed this fact the more s
the see of Ely, whichyear
for appointmentthe
first
aonnodf
Chancellor's) mind was the
yielded him nothing,
and which he remonstrated about'
but which he was told could not be remedied. He (the
Lord Chancellor) thought that was a most unsatisfactory
footing on which to place the revenue of the hierarchy ;
but, on the other hand, he was bound to say that the
prelates had no choice in the matter, the ecclesiastical
commissioners fixing the sum to be paid—honestly no
doubt--and the bishop had nothing to do but to receive-
the income. Two years since, however, the law had
been altered, and things, he was happy to say, were
now placed on a better footing. If any facts, however,
werefe
rm enr eacr
re sas
na
gr ye
into e
nptr, o vt
he e tyh
we
erues aftui userfnaicathoerdy nature u
there oetfatthe.
ment of the right rev, prelate.
RinleVsstAhtehTneEnrobßseelfoLt
The returns were then ordered.
state L o Lord BEAUMONTprivate
before
oLe callSth e attention
house. ste ov
Several
buPs
bills had reached that house at so late a period that
they would be lost if the sessional order, which decreed
that no private bill should be read a second time after
12th July, was enforced. Many of those bills were de-
layed by the regulations respecting railways in the
other house, more by the difficulty of obtaining mem-
bers for select committees, in consequence of the great