The Sun.
London, England, 1853-07-15 00:00:00

it forward it would be only for the purpose ho had men.
tioned.

4 I
REGISTRATION OF ASSURANCES.
Mr. HUME wished to k-tow whether the Covernment
intended to proceed with this bill, with regard to which
members were every day receiving a great many-letters ?
Lord J. RUSSELL said that the bill had been referred
to a select committee, and without some corrmunication
with that committee it was not for him to say what would
be done with respect to the bill.
Sir G. GREY said it would greatlyfacilitate the public
business if hon. members, who had ell's for Wednesday,
would give up the sitting on that day to the Government.
(Hear.) The Factory Fill had been fixed for a late (thy in
July—(laughter)—and he wished to know irom the noble
lord opposite whether it was fltended to proceed with that
bill.

Lord J. MANNERS said that the right hon. gentleman
had better put the question to the hon, member for Old-
ham (Mr. CobbeW, who was mono intimately concerned
with the bill than he wo.s.
RUSSIA AND TURKEY.
Mr. DlSRAELl—Referring to the question I addressed
to the: noble lord (Lord J. Fussell) on Monday, v, ith re-
spect to the circular dispatch signed " Ne3=elrode," which
reached the met -orolis that day, I then mentioned it ap-
peared in the d= patch that the occupation of the Turkish
ports by the combined English'and French fleet; was coesi-
. _ _

tiered by Russia as a naval occupation analogous in cha- 1
meter to the military occupat'on of the Turkish princlF.a•
lities by the Russian army. I also mentioned the dispatch
stated,when that complete satisfaction wasgiven by Turkey
to Russia which was its due, and when the pressure which
the attitude of the two maritime powers in the ports
alluded to had ceased,. then the Emperor of Rush:a would
withdraw his forces IA :thin their own limits. The tioble
lord on that occasion, wh•'e he justly felt it to be his duty
to question the propriety of the first allegation I alluded
tc—namely, that the Iresence of the combined fleets was a
ntvrl cecupation of the doreriors of Ihe Sultan, said,
with reference to the second si atement, his impression was,
t'sat I was not authorised i i the interpretation I put on the
circular dispatch. It has three been mentioned in another
place that the observation of the noble was inadver•t-
ently made—a pardorable inadventure, ce-..tainly, as the
document bad on'y jrst arrived, and the noble lord's Mien;
tion bad only been just called to it. But, s'r, it is not for
that purpose I r'-:a to address a question to the noble lord.
The Secretary of Stat 3, in anothez place, took the oppor7
tunity of declaring the determination of her Majesty's
Ministers that they would not listen to the conditions
pressed in that dispatch in so peremptory a manne7, and
that tdey would not for a moment—in the management of
this important affair—ad-Tit as a primary condition that
the combined fleets shorld leave the Turkish ports alluded
Assuming, FS I do, that now negotiations are only
formally, not.vi-:tually pursued—and that they are au'lved
at what is called a dead-lock—and believing that advantage
to the public service will arise from a d'scussion of the
question in both Houses of Parliament—l wish to know if
the noble lord hr's any objection to fix a day on which the
hon. member for Aylesbury can being on the discussion ha
th's house?

Lord J. RUSSELL—In answer to the right hon. gentle-
man, I must refer to the circumstances of the answer
given by me on a former day. The right hon. gentleman
asked me a question with regard to the circular dispatch
which only reached this country that day—and as I only
had an opportu-ity of reading it in the newspaper in a
cui-sory manner, and had not made myse7f completely
master of its contents, I therefore answered the i'ght hon.
gentleman with respect to my impression of the interpreta-
tion to be put upon tl'at pa- of the document which said
the Russian troops would be removed from the principali-

ties 'f the preF!sure from the combined fleets in the Turkish
poi's were taken off. I alleged I could not bei"eve it NNas
intended by the Itussirn gover_iment to make that a condi-
tion of the evacuation of the piincipalities. I d;d so, not

only because it did not appear to me that that position was
quite distinctly laid down, but also because I could not con-
ceive that no account of two things so totallyun'ike the Rus-
sian government wou'd think itself justified in demand'ng
that the English and French fleets should leave the Tork-
ish waters befcie the Russian troops evacuated the princi-
palities. Because, in the one case, the English and French
fleets were only in the waters of an allied power, and
only there for the purpose,
.not of putt 'ag a pressure on
that power, or urging that power in eny way, but to be
ready in case that power should call for the assistance of
its allies, in the event of actual invasion of its tea:Am:es.
The other case was that of an actual occupation of the prin-
cipalities belonging to Turkey by Mission troops. I could
see no similarity or comparison between the cases, and I
could not think that a person of the experience and raga-
city of Count Nesselrc de could have affixed his signature to
a document which declared to all the world that such was
the opinion and determination of the Russian Government.
At the same time, admitting that the words bei^r on the
face of them the interpretation the right hon. gentleman
gave, with respect to the question asked by the right bon.
gentleman I have to state he is mistaken in supposing tho
negotiations have come to a dead-lock; on the contrary,
both the English and French Governments have considered
whether there are not propositions wl icy might be accett d
to both by the Russian and Turkish Goverrment3,
would afford the means of obtaining a i acific termination
of these unfortonate disputes. Whether or no these hoi. 39
will be justified we cannot know immed'ately. It must
take some time before we learn what is the view taken by
the Count of St. Peteriburgh of the mode in wh'ch Eng-
Land, Fi.nce, or Austr'n may have ente.cl upon the:e
subjects. AO whie such is the stag of the negcl lion,
I think it is not desi7able to have it a mattsr of discrssion
in this how.e.

SUCCESSION DU f Y BILL.

On the motion for considering the amendments on tb's

bill,
Mr. BARROW mcved in clause 1 the insertion of the
words, "except money secured on heritable property in
Scotland," after Ireland. He saw no reason why money
secured by heritable bonds in Scotland should not be placed
in the same condition as money s:cn-ed on lend in Fng-
) and and Ireland. (Hear.)
Mr. BASS said that there could be no raasen for exempt-
ing the money secured on land in Scotland which was not
equally valid in re ipect to E ';'and cud Leland.
The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER said that
the only reason for the exc::ption merle in favour of Scot-
l: id was, that by the law of Scotland heritable bonds were
regarded as real proper y, and were liable to be charged for
the purpose of rating to the poor. But he must admit that
this liability to rating or'y Pfected heritable bonds, in
common with other desc-_:ptio )s of property. (Cheers.)
He admitted that there was a great deal to be said in fa-
your of the view of the hon. gentleman, and he would
therefore accept the cniendurent he propo;,:,l.
The amendment was then agreed to.
Mr. FRESHFIELD proposed the followi-ss addition at
the end of clause 2 :—" And for the pal•poce o: gover&ng
and defining the several provisions in this act contained, it
is hereby declared and provided that the object and inten-
tion of the legislature is to assess the tax hereby imposed
upon property to which any person shall succeed without
recvniary consideration under eny settlement or other dis-
position, or by operation of law, in such and the like man-
ner as if the same property or interest had been acquired
by will or by way of distribution 'n case of intestacy."
His object in proposing the amendment was to reader the
interpretation of the act snore clear.
The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER opposed the
amendment; first, on the general ground that it would be
an unsafe course to enunciate large definitions of which it
was impossible to foresee the effect in the construing of the
statute ; and, secondly, because in part-viler cases the
amendment would cut, across decisions which the house bad
already frequently come to during the progress of the bill
in committee.
The amendment was negatived.

On clause 7,
Mr. MILLINGS proposed to insert the workls "in such
property"awftoerulte
dhawgio.ered bteon et
hfit.e amendment,
hoped
nciraeatte
,hbelgahut hon.
gentlemanbecause
ethe
eaurdigVt mhuonci.l gnenatcleemoraan-
principle
tw obviously rbeahcitiiclihhrecdtchOuld not but thick they
wjrds were
whsoen
wrillaollmitihtdtoefd through mistake or inadvertence. He wantod
to know if it was the meaning of the clause, that without
there being in favour of a grantor any interest in the pro-
Tier 4, but merely some mere matter of personal security
hewas to be taxed on the successions because if so it would
be contrary to what he understood to be the spirit of the
act.

The SOLICITOR-GENERAL objected that if the words
proposed by the hoe. gentleman were 'userted in the clause,
it would open a door for the extensive evasion of the tax.
If a man, sold his estate for an annuity, or any other bene-
fit, being a bona fide exchange, it would rot fall withfn the
operation of the claus=e ; but if i here were a re ervation of a
co-equal interest, the duty would be chargeable on the suc-
cession to that interest. The clause was worded for the
purpose of taking in those cases in wh:ch en in;;erest was
reserved to the grantor, and to prevent evasion.
The amendment was then put and negatived. Several
verbal amendments on the paper, in the name of the Chan-
cellor of the Exchequer, were put end coveied.
Mr. HE &DLAM moved an amendment in clause 20 to
omit the words " or of any lease with' a the opera-
tion of the 24th section of this act." The obj-ct of the
clause was to exempt leases o,:ginally held on a rack rant
on their falling in, but it was necessary to take e. re that
the exemption should not apply to other lear.es, which it
would if the words were retained.
The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER was dis-
posed to acquiesce in the amendment on the geeund that
the words which had been introduced on the ~aggestiou of
the hon. and learned gentleman opposite wound exel,ll
from the tax any increase of value on the falling
leases generally.
The amendment was put and agreed to, and
Mr. MULLINGS moved an amendment in clause 21,
with the view of making the scale of d uties estabijshed
under the Legacy Act (the 36th a George III.) appl cable
atsineunnddmereutht,sifaccta.ielHede,
too
ml: fiettaondd
tottahterthteeremffiencatbloofinttheirses
hweouhladabeth‘r
Iseidsseraarbplyre- thoerrseitlnuceonthtehscalaeccoofudnztiez;
abuuset
when the Chancellor of the Exchequer brought forward
this measere he estimated the. produce of the tax at about
two millions only, whereas, -irom die best information he
had been able to collect, ho believed it would amount to at
least 2,:'00,000.l. or 2,400,0001. Under these circumstances
he thought there was no 4 C oa to put on a greater
pressure than the adoption of the tables of the Legacy Act
louid impose ; tha more a ) that ono effect of the bill
word bo to do what was never contemplated, viz., to in-
crease the legacy duty as well as to impose en additional
charge upon real property.
The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER, with re-
gard to the amount which the tax would produce, observed
that there were vely many elements of uncertainty. He
admitted a nett benefit of two it lions ; but in doing so,
he proce ;led on the assumption that when the state of the
revenue world permit the house would reform the probate
duties, which could not be done without a sacrifice of re-
venue. (Hear.) It might be that in taking 30 years as
the average of successions, he had taken too long a term;
but in the successions in the peerage, where they had some-
thing like a test, he found the rate of successions was much
nearer his calculation than that of the hon. and learned
gentleman. Ent the question was not as to the demonstra-
tiveness of the one estimate or the other, nor would he say
that the tax might not yield something more than he calcu-