The Express. — London, England, 1853-06-14 00:00:00

IMPERIAL PARLIAMENT. HOUSE OF LORDS.—MONDAY, JUNE 13. T. Lol.l, St.Y.LI.OII wok his Nat at 5 o'clock. PETITIONS PRESENTED. Rs ..t •hu 1 • . . By Lord NVIIARNCLIFFE. Item Sin theld, praying that th. government would support Tack-y against the elaims of Rustle. RUSSIA AND TURKEY. The Marquis of CLAN DICARDE w'sbed to rut a ques tion to the noble earl at the head of the Foreign Depart. 111112 t with reference to an announcement which had sp_ pared a few days ago in the organ of the French govern. mina—the Motaikur newspaper. That statement was that the French and English fleets in the Me diterranean had received orders, not owl, to pro ceed to the Dardanelles, but that Admirals D• La Bosse sad Dundee had received orders to act con jointly and in concert, with respect to any orders they might receive from the smbassadors of their respective countries. He bad read that announcement (which he had M doubt was true, and which he hoped would be confirmed by his noble friend) with the greatest satisfaction. Whe ther such instructioas might or might not have been given at an earlier period, might or might not be matter inquiry at • future time; but he was sure that it the advisers of our gracious Sovereign acted in concert with the government of the Emperor of (be French and the British fortes acted in concert with the forces of the Emperor of the French it would be almost impossible for ■ny war to disturb the peace of Europe—Cheer, hear)—but if, unfortunately, such a war should arise, it could not be of long duration or of doubtful result. lie bad read the announcement with great satisfae- bon, not bemuse he washed to see any hoed; demonstra tion, but because be looked upon it as a gurd and securi•, for the preservation of peace. (Hear, hear.) Ile, therefore, begged to ask his noble friend whether the announcement in tha4/uttafear to which he had referred wu eorrect or not ? The Earl of CLARENDON—In answer to the question May noble friend, 1 have to inform bun that the report to wbieb be alludes, as having been published in the 3foltileur n few days ago, is correct. (Hear, heu ) When the sews reached t►is country of the departure of Prism bleachikof hem Constantinople, to be followed is a few days by the whole of the Roans* legation, and when the ruptare oy ellebil relations between Russia and Turkey were moms peeled by mieeseies eirc anotaaces, her Maj esty 'a government ibaugbt it was their duty to give to Lord Stratford de Redeldre authority to send for the fleet, and to idstruet Admiral I)uodaa W proceed It the neighiourhood of the Dardanelles, there!, await the communications he might /wave from her Majesty's. Ambassador a: Constantinople. My noble friend is likewise guile right in thinking that this step was taken is concert with the French government, between whom and her Majtsty's government, as on more than one measles I have had to mention before, there has throughout esisted,and I am happy to say there still continues to *list, the most cordial understanding upon this impor tant question. (Cheers.) The ambassadors and admirals of the two countries are furnished with instructions pre entity of • similar character. Both the governments believe that their ambassadors will use the same discretion and moderation is exercising the powers nos entrusted to them at Constantinople, and they hope also that the neces sity wit not arise for their having recourse to that power, becalm., as my noble friend has truly said, the measure which her Majesty's govirnmeut has taken has bees cioa adored solely as a matter of precaution ; and so far from precluding, I Verily believe it will tend to promote that pacific solution of the existing differences to which I need hardly arum your lordship. the best endeavours of her Majesty's government have been directed. (Hear, hear.) The Earl of DERBY—WiII the noble part be kind enough to state to the house the date when thi instructions were issued to the admiral ? The Bail of CLARENDON—I cannot exactly state the date; both was the next day but one after we had re. ceived the information of the departure of Prince Ilenehl hot front Constantinople. ' THE CLARE ELECTION. The Earl of CAlibl..l3gave aMic:;Ciat on Thursday be should ask the government whether it was their inten tion to institute legal proceedings against the two priests alludrd to in the report of the other house, as haviog in cited the populace to a breach of the pew ? INDIA. The Earl of ELLEN BOROUGH mid that at • very early period of the session he took 000110‘011 to express an opinion that it would be desirable that legislation, with re spect to the future government of India, should be deferred for a year. At that time it appeared to him that there had not been sufficient information before the public to enable them to come to a correct judgment on the question. A great change had however sine* taken place in public opinion, and he certainly thought that at the present moment the people of this country, supported as they would be generally by the press, would have been prepared to re ceive a larger measure of reform than that which the gonrament had prepaid. (Hear, hear.) At that period many persona entertained sanguine expectations that the war in Ave might come to an early and succesefel termina tion. There had sprung up since that time more agita tion in India ma the future government of that conatiy than could have been expected; and it had been inti- mated by the Governor-General that it was not desirable to delay legislstion. And farther, no doubt the rents taking place in the eastem part of Europe had • material bearing on oar poction as an Asiatic power. He, therefore, thought it right that we should place our house in order—(hear, hear)—and bis—asiovisecisd in the expedi ency of immediate legislation. (Hear, hear.) At therms time he must express his apprehension that the measure proposed by the government, temporary and experimental mit avowedly was, was more calculated to continue agita tion ea the subject than to effect a permanent settlement. The noble earl then went at length labs his reasons for coming to that conclusion. Had GRANVILLE said that so far as the government were eeseerned, gambit, could be more esnefratent than to defer legalities fee Weer times, SIAM* doe yeses ;- het is doine'so they,* they wadi be inentring s tearful resew. ability, and hdliaiting serious injury spat am ladies am" pin ; and seeingdmat they had the opinion of Lord Bardloge the late Goveraer-denerallitatzerat Govessor-laenmel, and now of the seine earl libelled glees the meet minas lifotabessiag the ankport, l a : I I= any fortber dewiest for dela, mild only originate in petty motives, wbisk be should be very sorry to see introduced late the dimensions me wardens of this hued. With meld Sodas memos itself, he eadeavourod to show that awash Mown ot sobtoperegsdee bad bees eireolsted rogioNbe 0618 jperorille kik swi pe = eves sewing Mimi MO bean Mated weenies,. a night asap Asti is the simingemeett of departments of publis disks In Ibis gantry, bat no ow woad think of proposing a diegps in our term of show on that masons. MOM Was also te show that government Is he eillonmand legislation had been se mated solely by a view of beseillniag the publis service, for that if they had osineiled their own sonvealence they would have esneetellad Se lbe leesperary pvernment, or bees mounted will 61116119 6 : m 5e. But they had pee fined retainiag grow if Directors, whisk the Dein of Wnineei bed Aldred 110 be the best Wm& mitered germane we Iffeeek and Sri no bud slew lard ro erre lie boggier' et tbe pesple They Mal eadeavoared to retain that institution, hat te Wpm it, and they felt that if the pia!' proposed should net answer public eametation. they AM Whim ?militated than impeded a change to a mem *We nmeldnery. (Hear.) Lord MONTRAGLE smigallied dust egltatsea might take plaite in ladle If this gentile wen left in inseertaiaty ; bet then be thought that the seems of government was sal mis-id to foster that agitation. They IMO proposing te legielets in a space of time short beyond all precedent, leaving the questions of employment of aativeo and of revenue open to future 'liquify. The Roble earl (Granville) had quoted the opinion of tie Duke of Welke toe, bet did he think that if the deka bed bees seed w>tethm east questions should be left era des seated moolkereee, Is would ban approved of steel as ansiagement ? la his opinion the course takes WWI government was entirely invariance with the ordinary proceedings of the - government. The Duke of AROYLL felt called upon to say a few words upon this esbjee., but he should coofioe himself to two pants—tint, the point of delay, and secondly the greenl point of a double government. With regard to the first point, that. were two classes of persons who urged delay ; first, them who sincerely and honestly believed that selleient evidence had not yet been given upon which to legislate ; and smondly, those—and he believed this class formed the great majority of those who were in favour of delay—who advocated delay, in t'..e hope that ultimately they would be enabled to overturn the *Mating system of Indian government. He would not say to which class he thought the noble lord belonged who last addressed their lordships, but although he admitted a good deal of what that noble lord said, he apprehended that in order to legislate upon the government of India, it was not neces sary that they should first have made up their minds *min all the questions which had been referred to the committee. With regard to the double system, it had been pronounced anomalnim ; but, although the government of la ha was an exception to almost every other form of goys rr.naent known to history, it could hardly be described as anomalous. But, what was meant by " anomalous" ? Did ..able lords mean that the double form was at variance wilt the abstract principle of the India government ? Ile reme Inhered reading a speech of the late 31r. O'Connell. in se h., h their lordships house was pronounced to be an anoass• loss institution. Mr. O'Connell said there was no more mum in r aving hereditary legislators to make oar laws than in harLia , hereditary tailors tom die our coats—(alinigh)—but thee , was a manifest prtncipla thee., and with those who did not admit the principle the argument of Mr. O'Connell west for nothing of course. (Hear, hear.) Now, those who considered the existing double form of govern- ran be be nearer should remember the circumstances under which our latim empire was acquired. I: me he remembered that this great and Enioat fabulous eau lire was acquired by s company of English meren ,nts, and it war by no menna irrational that the government should 141 diviled into two sections. ahe house and the eouutry were cow fully informettas to the nature of tbs. ledislation 'which the government proposed, and Le hoped' that no unneceaaary opposition would be offered to the pro ' grew of the measure. The Marquis of CLASH. IC A RD E deprecated hasty legis lation on this important question. The Earl of ALUEMARLE objected to a double govern mi lit .1 , irrespoi.silile, and oppostil M the pros perity and well-being of India. The motion was then agreed to, and the house adjourned at half-past ti o'clock. HOUSE OF COMMONS.-MONDAT, JUNE 13. The S took the clhair at 4 o'clock. NEW WRIT. A new writ was ordered for Lilanbargb (shire), fora mem ber to serve in the place of Sir J. Hope, deceased. PRIVATE BUSINESS. PETITION liiiill - 14 : .D - io:CbMbIITTEE ON - iiii6 - VP NN. Mr. HILDYARD moved that the yetitinn of inhabitants of Wilts, Somerset, and Dorset, and the proprietors of Imad, complaining of the non-execution of certain lines of railway authorised to he constructed under the set■ of the Great Western and Bristol sod Exeter Railway Companies, and praying for redress [presented 25th February last], be re. ferred to the Committee on Group NN, to whom the Devon and Dorset Railway Bill stands relined ; and that it be an instractien to the committee, if they shall se think fit, to hear the petitioners, by their counsel, agents, and wit nesses, upon the said petition, against the said bill. After a disenssion, in which S:r T. D. Acland, Mr. G. Butt, Mr. Divett, and Mr. D. Denison joined, Mr. CARDWELL said he hoped the motion would be agreed to. The view of the Board of Trade was, that on a matter of this kind a mere technicality should not intercept the expression of a general public opinion. The hoses divided : _ For the reference lift Against it SPITALFIELDS AND SIIOREDITCH IMPROVE- MENT BILL. On the motion of Sir W. idol.;.;wondrat, It was ordered that in the case of this bill the Examiner of Petitions for private bills have leave to sit and proceed ferthwith. Loans' AMIINDMINTS —The Lords' amendments on the (.Ilowing bills were considered and agreed to: Australian Agricultural Company Bill, Great Northern Railway (No. 1) Bill, and Reesendale Waterworks Bill. TNIRD READINOS —Banisley Waterworks (No. 2) Bill (amendments to be propotreJ); Copper Miners in England Company Bill; Electric Telegraph Company Bill; Lime rick, Ennis, and Killaloe Junction Railway Bill; Limerick, Kenn, and Killaloe Junction Railway (power to sell, &c.) Bill; Manchester and Bury Road Bill; Wimbledon and Croydon Railway Bill; Whiteharen and Furness Junction Railway Bill. The following bills were considered and ordered for third readings :—Ayrshire and Gallo way (Amid:stows and Dslmellington) Railway; Bays water, Paddington, and Holborn Bridge Railway ; Bide ford Extension Railway; Burton.upon•Trent Improvement No. 2) ; East and West India Docks and Birmingham Junction Railway (No. 2) ; Electric Telegraph Company of Ireland; Forth and Clyde Junction Railway; Furness Rail way; Leeds, Bradford, and Halifax Junction Railway; Llanidloes and Newtown Railway ; Roserea and Parsons town Junction Railway; South Wales Mineral Railway (amendments to be proposed) ; York, Newcastle, and Ber wick, York and North Midland, and Leeds Northern Rail way Companies (Amalgamation, dm); Halifax Waterworks and Improvement; Bala. PUBLIC BUSINESS. THE INDIA BILL. Lord STANLEY gave notice, that on the motion for the second reading of the India Bill, he would move, " that in the opinion of this house, further information is necessary to enable parliament to legislate with advantage for the further g ent of Ind.., and that at this late period of the 111111111100 it is inexpedient to proceed with a measure which. while it disturbs eliding arrangements, cannot be con. sidered as a final settlement." (Cheers.) THZ TURKISH QUESTION. Mr. LAYARD said he wished to put a question of which he had given notice to the noble lord the member for the City of London. An announcement bad appeared in the Moniteur, the official organ of the French government, that Mons. de Lacour, the French ambassador at Constan tinople, had received instructions to call on the French fleet, if necessary: that similar instructions hid been sent to Lord Stratford di Redcliffe, our ambassador at Constan tinople; and that the two fleets had proceeded towards the Dardanelln. He asked the noble lord whether that was the fact, sad whether the fleets of France and England hall, according to the announcement, proceeded to any _ _ _ _ point near the Dardanelles, as near, in point of fact, its they could approach by existing treaties ? Lard J. RUSSELL said he had to Mate, in answer to the question, that the announcement in the Manilasr was per- fectly correct, and that orders had been given to the effect stated in the 3faHileur. Since those orders were given, they had not received any account of the English fleet having left Malta, or of the French fleet having left Salamis. Mr. DISRAELI inquired whether the orders were given to the admiral at Malta or to the British ambassador at Constantinople ? Lord J. RUSSELL replied that orders were sent to the British ambassador at Constantinople, giving him power, under eertain limitations, to call up the British fleet. Directions were likevese sent to the British admiral at Malta, by a different course, ordering him to proceed to Bailie Bay. Mr. DISRAELI asked what was the date of the orders? Lard J. RUSSELL said be was now only speaking from memory, but be thought the despatches t 3 Lord Stratford de Redeliffe were sent on the 31st of May, and the instruc tions to the admiral were devatched from this country on the Lt or 2nd of Jene—he believed the 2nd. THE SUCCESSION DUTIES BILL. On the order of the day for going into committee on this bill, Sir J. PAKINGTON rose to move the amendment of which he had given notice, that the bill be committed that day six months. He regarded not only this tax, but still more the 'machinery by which ft was proposed to enforce it, with the greatest poesible disapprobation, and he thought that it they passed this bill they would abandon their first duty to thosewho seat them there. In mating to the house the Mews he entertained on the subject, he was bound to bear in mind that he should not do so for the first time, and that he had already, at considerable length, explained his views when the right hon. gentleman proposed his resolu tions. The speech, of the right honourable gentleman In tistredaciag the resolutions • was marked in a considerable degree as delivered In • ten* of authority. The right hon. gentlemen touched undoubtedly on the great objections felt is various quarters to this tax, but be flanced et them very lightly, and he abstained alto ge th er rom entering into any explanation of the details on which the objections to which this particular description of tax rusted. la the speech which he (Sir J. Pakington) then male, he shallespd the government to meet him fairly with figures, and to join issue with him la the objections that be entertained ; and he stated then, and repeated sew, that anything like party opposition tea proposal of this kind must be unsuccessful, and mast fail, stale. it rested on the strong agar ground of reseal and of justice. He was very likely to fall, into errors of detail, as he bad not seem to official documents. He might have been incorrect in particular items, but he felt strong in the opinion that as regarded the general substance of the figures which be had stated they were unimplagned in argument and in justice. He was net follswed by any member of the government, and he felt this a disadvantage in aditzeeshig the house again. Bat though no answer was then made to the argn meats he used, there were two important respects in which , he stood in • different position Brom that which he occupied when last he addressed the house on this subject. There had been a most 'important discus- Won en this subject is another place dace that period. Since that period the bill had been placed in their funds, and it entirely justified the opinions he had previously formed of the measure, and"particniarly of the machinery by which the tax was proposed to be collected. (Hear, hear.) He would, however, first advert to the discussion " in another place," to which he had already referred. The opinion of that assembly was tasted by a division ; and the government was saved from virtual condemnation by a very narrow majority —by the votes, in fact, of that portion of the assembly whom he might describe as "corporations sole" (the bishops), and who expressed their entire appro bation of an impost that would fell neither upon their order nor upon themselves. (Loud cheers.) But what the country would regard much more than the result of a close division was the signal triumph of argument and reasoning which, in his opinion, was entirely on the side of the oppo nents of the measure. (Hear, hear.) On the one side, they had in a remarkable degree legal learning, close reasoning, and great eloquence, whereas that reasoning, and that elo quence was only met on the other, by brief statements of time nor only argsnient which he had ever heard advanced in favour of the imperil of the government—namely, the alleged anomaly of the present legacy duties. (Hear.) That had been the argument, too, of the Chancellor of the Exchequer. The right hon. gentleman told them likewise that he proposed the tax Is *substitute for an income tax. Well, his (Sir J Pakington%) answer was ready. Locking at the nature of the tax on sueeessiems, and the proposed mode of levying it, the income tax was by far the lesser evil of the two. (Hear, hear.) Again, the right hon. gentle man told the house that the tax was to relieve them from a great burden of iudiree• taxation ; but he (the right hon. baronet) disputed altogether the wi.dorn of attempting to get off a portion of their indirect taxation—however desi rable that might be—by imposing a new tax that was ep.n to such grave, serious, and, ho humbly thought, in supsrable objections. (Hear, hear.) But could thy vin dicate the proposed tax on the ground which had b. en so often taken, of the anomaly that at present exiled' In hi. opinion they could not. (Hear, hear.) The right hon. gentleman hid dwelt resnoly npon that, which was indeed the strongest part of Li. e 1..., the difference beteeen settled and unsettled personalty ; but he (Sir J. Pakington) was prepared to resist the proposal of the go vernment sn , ,st distinctly upon th it very ground. The right hon. gentleman said that the present legacy duty t was so extremely unfoirthationtethiaprinvet• be N i ivmust hi/ pteparnt te repeal rt aloorria oilii :^lv t h : bareite ), with quite ready to maker that aliened , eindra say that It would be blotter to titpeal thB legacy dbty at once than tolevy the tea peoposed Ili t be imposed under 411 e provisions of this ball. (Hear, hadttY ' Tb• argoment ettbe rightehen. gentleman might be . thus stated:—'Thee legacy duty is so unfair in its operation and so unequal in its pressure, that I, as a minister, cannot leave it as it is, and therefore I will make it worse " (Rear, hear.) If the,. must impose the tax upon settled personalty, they ought not in fairness and justice to make it prospective; otherwise they would be passing an cx yost facto 14w. But what was the Chancellor of the Exchequer'. answer to that ? Why, he treated this, a question of principle, en tirely as one of expediency. He said he could not consent to such a proposal, because the tax would not accrue for fifty years—in other words, hie answer was that he could not afford to be just. (Chews.) But the real question was not one of anomaly as between settled and unsettled property, but as between personalty, and, to see the right hon. gentleman's own phrase, rateable property; for let him here remind the house that this was not a question solely affecting land. No doubt the bill would art upon the landed intermits In an oppressive manner; but there were other interests to whom it would apply quite as much. There was, however, • party in the country and in that house who were ready to adopt any course in order to aim a blow at the aristocratic institutions of thie country, and at the property by which those institutions were supported. (Hear, hear.) He was sorry to see say government, under the necessities of their position, lending themselves to further the objects of that party ; but the cry which hail been raised in favour of the proposal adopted by the right hon. gentleman was as delu sive as it was unwise and unjust. The ownerof every small house, the manufacturer who possessed a factory, and the merchant who was the proprietor of a warehouse, were all as deeply concerned in the bill as the landed interests ; for they all held rateable property, and would all be liable to the tax. (Hear, hear.) This was • tax upon the younger children of families, and upon unmarried daughters at the moment of their domestic afflic tion. When they were deprived of the comforts of the parental home, and were thrown upon their own pittance, the tax-gatherer would come upon their capital, and deduct no inconsiderable portion. In a word, he need only refer them to the striking expression of one to whose authority the noble lord opposite ought to be the first to bow. The late Earl Grey, when a member of that house, and wheel in 1805 Mr. Pitt proposed to extend the legacy duties to de scendants in the direct line, said, with equal truth and force, that he could " only designate the measure as a tax upon misfortune." (Cheers.) He had said, and this was the argument of the hon. member for Lambeth (Mr. W. Williams), that the chief ground apon which the bill was supported was the alleged anosslr of taxing personalty while rateable property was exempt ; but was it a less anomaly that personal property should be excused from other taxes to which rateable property was alone called I upon to contribute ? (Loud cheers.) Did they not recol leen that in times gone by—times that he hoped would never come again—in the days when the battle of the corn laws was fought,the agriculturists repeatedly raised the question of their peculiar burdens; and what was the answer they received ? Why, that they had not to pay the legacy duty, and that that was an equivalent. (Hear, hear.) The landed interests were the victims of not ens or two, but several anomalies, that completely conntervailed the alleged anomaly of their exemption front legacy duty. They bad to pay poor rates,and for stamps stem eoaveyances, with many other similar charges, which personal property escaped. He knew it had been said that they ought not to say anything about rates, because they had bought their estates subject to them; but he shot/ether refused to concur in such an argument. They might just as well say, if by any ill fortune this bill should pus, that they had no nght to complain, because they had bought their property liable to succession duty, er any other duty they might think proper to impose. (Hear, hear.) The Chancellor of the Exchequer bad can didly admitted in his speech upon the budget, that the land was liable to "peculiar and exceptional burdens." Now what was the amount of those burdens ? The right bon. gentleman had stated the annual value of the rateable pro petty of this country at 80,000,000 i.; and he tiiid also his authority for estimating the burdens upon the land at 14,n00,0001. or 15,000,0001. • year. He ventured, however, to add to the right hon. gentleman's figures charges for fire insurances,: stamps, and other items, which rateable property did pay, and which would raise the annual taxation upon rateable property to 17,500,0001. or there- abouts, which was about 22 per cent. And now what was the amoust of the income derived from personal property ? He shrunk from naming the sum ; but the total amount of ! taxation (exclusive of the income tax, which he had alto gether omitted as being equal in both cases) —the total taxes raised upon all the vast amount of personal property was at the most only three or four millions. (Hear, hear.) How, then, could the government be justified in imposing this additional taxation on the ground of an alleged anomaly ? (Cheers.) Another reason why he opposed the bill was the excessive inequality of the tax. (Hear, hear.) This argu ment had been urged in 1796, and was equa.ly true now. They had at last the schedules before them, and he mutt say that he did not wonder that the right hon. gentleman should have kept them bask as long as he cou ld; for they plainly showed how onerous and insupportable this tax would be. (Hear, hear.) Take two men of 21 years of age—one of them might be in the bloom of early manhood with a loan life before him ; and another might be consumptive with not two years to live ; yet by the schedules they were treated as precisely the same. (Loud cheers.) Take again two men of thirty-five —one might be sinking under heart disease and the other in the prime of life, yet the same thing occurred. In short the same glaring inequality pervaded the whole plan. One property might not pay the tax once in half • century, while another might be constantly becoming liable to it. He knew that if this tax were pained it must be fortified by tyrannical and arbitrary enactments to enforce its pay ment. (Hoar, hear.) He was wise in his proposal ; but there were two questions remaining behind of so little mo ment—would parliament pass the bill—and if parliament were so subservient, would the country submit to it ? He hoped and believed they would not. He would be the last to counsel his countrymen to resist the law ; bat without hesitation he would exercise whatever influence he possessed in urging the country to resist, by every legitimate and Lawful mesas, an impost so vexatious, and machinery so tyrannical and inquisitorial. (Hear, hear.) The example of Mr. Pitt failed them ; the circumstances were different, and did not justify them in calling on parliament for so objectionable a tax. He feared there was a motive less creditable for the proposal of this tax, arising from the ex traordinary manner in which this government was omen tuted--...tt had.no-party-es.mhislaCe-depeadead must eon ciliate bow it could the s u pport of some four or Ave dif ferent sections of is opponents. At one time this was to be done by an apology for • protestant speech, by which the Boman catholic members of the government were woo back. (Hear, hear) At another time—and he feared this was a case of the kind—by pandering to the radical section of the house. (Heer, bear.) Such had bees his im pression from the moment he heard this proposal. He looked upon it as a bait for the support of the Isamu tax ; and in a former debate Hr. Bright bad openly and dis tiartly &dared that if it had not Mee for this I part of the Budget, the government would never have 'get hie ongpert to the imam* tax. (Cheers.) He ob jected alike to the motives by which the tax had been pro . posed and teas tin itself. Let parliament pass it if they would be wabsorelset smaugh, bat his .firm conviction was that they Mil WM/ me mime epos any permanent income from this mum" fir whom the country found the &attire of the burden, and of the machinery by which it was to be raised, a public feeling would be excited with which no government would dare to struggle, and the day was not distant when the present government or their neeessors, whoever they might be, would lad themselves obliged to propose the repeal of this duty, in obedience to the easel ' mous deman d of an indignant nation. (Beer, bear.) Mr. HEADLAM regretted that the right boa. patlemaa had thought it tombs so many ehiselleme to the' bill; but the course he takes did not go to remove those objeraions, but to prevent any farther proceeding with the bill. He was the more surprised at this, bemuse the right boo. baronet had bees • member of a government who themselves had contemplated the proposing each a tax, and this not more than six months age. - (Mai, hear.) He did not charge this se mere ineessisteacy, bat after the right hon. baronet had concurred is such a measure, it was too much to say that the government now permed it with a view to buy radical support. (Hear, hear.) Sir J. PAR INGTON rose, and said he could give the moat unqualified sentradiethre to this statement. . . Mr. HEADLAM said he did sot know what the contro -1 diction applied to ; all he asserted was that the then Chan cellor of the Exchequer made this statement with reference to the government of which the right hon. baronet was a member. He used the term "we" with refersoce to that cabinet, and surely that must have included all the members. ! Hs regretted the course that bad been taken, not from any effect it would hive on the hill, bats& tending to place the landed gentry in a wrong position. Mr. FRESHFIELD said that the hon. and learned gen , dentin seemed desirous to stop opposition to this measure, on the ground that his right hon. friend the member for 1 Bucks had committed himself to the principle of a succee• sion tax ; but if the hon. and learned gentleman road the language of his right hon. friend, he would find that it did not warrant the inference—scarcely in part, and certainly Inot in substance—which he drew from them. After stating the nature of his proposition his right hon, friend went on to say—" At the same time we have not neglected carefully to examine the question of the stamp duty, and of the legacy and probate duty, and therefore we propose--." Did his right hon. friend say that? No ; but he proceeded to say—" And it is not impossible but we may be able, en the proper occasion, to bring forward a measure for impost. leg a duty on successions that will reconcile conflict tea interests and terminate the injustice Ito much coin- I plained of." lie (Mr. Freshfield) did not contend for l the exemption of land from the succession tax l in the atotract, hot what he contended for was that the land should be put on the same footing with per sonal property before tt.y could be dealt with in the same I way. Ile knew of no measure which would prove so destruc tive of social rEloti.ins or Effect half the mischief that the bill, if passed, would Effect. (Hear.) Mr. PHILLIMORE thought that the strong language 1 which had been used in reference to this proposition by lion. gentlemen opposite ought to be somewhat qualified, I 'seeing that the right hon. gentleman the late Chance for of 1 the Exchequer bad declared that on the proper occasion ho w .std be prepared to propose a tax on successions himself. (hear, hear.) He confessed he listened with astonishment to the right hon. gentleman when he said that her Majesty's government "pandered to radical pressure" in proposing this measure, for of all the radical and revolutionary speeches he ever heard the most so was that of the right hon. gentleman who began his address by attacking the bench of bishops for the vote which they conscientiously gave on this subject, and he ended it by saying he hoped THE EXPRESS, TUESDAY EitiMfO, JUNE 14, 1853. that tr;learlieuent passed the bill the people would never' submit to it. (Hear, hear.) &unser lan guage could scarcely have proceeded Iron( the month of the meat revolutionary demagogue. (Hear, hear.) The geeat "fallaej• Which pervaded the speech of the right hon. baronet wale, that personal property paid no peer-rate. Mr. MtiLLINGS believed that the measure would prove Moat burdensome; and that, however popular It might be at present, ultimately, when its effect became known, the people would say that they had " the bill, the whole bill, and nothing but the bill "---(laughter)—and that before 20 years had elapsed the right hon. gentleman (Mr. Gladstone) would be considered one of the most dangerous and mis chievous Chancellors of the Exchequer that the country had aver seen. (Laughter.) Mr. W. WILLIAMS said he should not have troubled the house had it not been for some misrepresentations of what he had stated on former occasions by the rigbt hon. baronet opposite (Sir J. Pakington). On the last oc casion when he introduced the subject of the legacy duty, he pointed out the great inequality and injustice exhibited in the levying of the tax on personal property. On that occasion he had referred to a return which demon strated that the large properties enjoyed the most extraor dinary exemptions; aad he mainly approved of the measure because it would, for the future, tee ;an efficient cheek upon a faulty system. As regarded the extension to the land, that was a bagatelle ; but it was a great measure so far as it would compel something like justice in dealing with real property. The bon. gentlemen then proceeded with great minuteness to comment upon and to dispute the calculations of the hon. baronet. He appealed to the landlords, therefore, for their own sake, not to follow the indiscreet lead of the hon. baronet. At any rate he would venture to tell the right hon. gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer that in proposing this measure he had shown more public vistue end public courage than any statesman of the century. (Hear, hear,) air J. TROLLOPE represented a large mess of small proprietors, and he regretted that the hon. gentleman ho had just sat down had talked of the landed interest entirely as if it was an interest made up of large properties. He denied the correctness of the hon. gentleman's calculations as to what land paid to the gross taxation of the country: he believed, on the contrary, that the land paid more then its share. Mr. A. PELLATT was there to express the opinions of his constitueata; and his constituents were •decidedly in favour of this Succession Bill; and he should eocordingly vote against this amendment. ----- - - - • - Sir J. WALSH said there had beta an union of parties to throw out Lord Derby's government, and it ap peared to him the government had brought forward this proposition in order to secure the support of the derrocratic party. He opposed this measure on principle. He thought property had been hardly desk with in adjusting taxation, and that the whole tendency of legislation of late yeses bad been to throw taxation on the property of the country, and to relieve other classes, which, to a certain extent, was proper and wise, but there was a limit to every thing. The great cry now was to relieve industry, to set com merce free, and relieve the labouring classes from tax ation. All great theories in their way, but the business of government was to reconcile conflicting interests and claims. He did not consider that the circumstances of the country required them to all on the landowners to make this great and cruel sacrifice. When the legacy and probate duty were imposed they were in the midst of a great war, but now they were at peace, the revenue was flourishing, the people prosperous, and there was no reason why they should call on the landowners to make such a sacrifice. He would endeavour to give a rapid view of the history of taxation. (.. Oh, oh," and laughter.) The bon. gentleman then read a series of calculations, which showed in the result that in the last 31 year, 40 mil lions of taxation had been remitted, and only 10,600,0001. imposed, being a balance in favour of remission of 29 or 30 millions. Seeing this, he thought that there ought to be some pause in remission of taxation, in order to see whether the prosperity that prevailed would not work out such a change as would allow of further remissions, and also whe ther the productiveness of some articles of taxation which remained, would not prevent the necessity of laying this cruel burden en the landed interest. He did not think that any effectual opposition to this bill could be carried on, but he left the case of the landed interest in this particular to the sense ofjustice of the English people. Lord J. RUSSELL—The right hoc. gentleman who began this debate spoke with great vehemence on the subject of this bill, and appeared to be inclined, by means of an effective and talented speech, to Teed the house away from the consideration of the matter, and to hedges the house to adopt something of the passion which he himself displayed. I am glad, therefore, that the speech of the hon. gentleman who has just eat down has somewhat calmed the house, and brought it into that state of equanimity in which we can fairly consider the question before us. (" Hear, hear, " and a laugh.) It appears to me that there is little cause for the warmth which the right hosourahle gentleman the member for Droitwich showed with respect to this t bill. I think that of itself—(l em not speaking of the clauses and provisions of the bill, but the question is, whether we shall go into committee on the bill)—I say, t hat in its nature the matter is not dif ficult or complicated. For a considerable time, the house has heard expressions in favour of a revision of taxation. ' Such expressions have come from this aide of the house, and they have been echoed by gentlemen opposite ; and when the right hos. gentleman the member for Bucking- bullshit. was Chancellor of the Exchequer, he adopted the ' scheme of a revision of taxation u the one most likely to settle a questioa which has been long in coutzoversy be. tween us. It has always appeared to me that a revision of taxation could not be effected at once. It has been for many years under consideration by us, and others might have also had it under consideration. The right hon. gentleman the member for Bucks made a laudable effort to elect this revision of taxation. We did not consider his mea careudicious, but the attempt was one for which he de serve great credit. But among other things the right hon, gentleman said that one of the subjects of considera tion by his government was that of the legacy duties. He did nut say what plan ho proposed, but that the sub ject was one which his government had not failed to con sider, and that it was not impossible but that he might bring forward a plan for a tax on successions. (Hear, hear.) The question remained in this state, when my right kon. friend the Chancellor of the Exche quer in going through part of our financial sys tem cams to the legacy duties, and nothing was more natural than that he should be struck with the in justiee and irregularity of the tax. We have in it a tax which bean hardly on personal property but from which real property is exempt, and which beyond this follows the artificial and singular distinctions of oar law, by considering some settled property as realty and some as only personalty, and holding that a lease of 999 years is a personal estate, and an estate for life with a particular contingency is realty, and so regulating the tax. Nothing was more likely to meet with the assent of those who desired a revision of tax ation than a plan by which these anomalies and irregu larities were corrected. I think My right hon. friend mut have been confirmed in his intentions luoking at the financial history of the tax, for when Mr. Pitt proposed a tax of nature he in the first instance proposed to im pose it on real as well as personal property. He divided it !into two bills, and it was only when on a division of the house the numbers were equal, 54 having voted on oath side, that he abandoned the tax on real property. Nothing is more clear than that in Mr. Pitt's view the two taxes should be imposed and although he introduced them in separate bills he believed that the principle was the same, and that the tax on the one property should be imputed also on the other. Let us consider the moms of Mr. Pitt's defeat. Mr. Fox objected to the tax on personal property, in the ' first instance, in the strong est manner, and it was only when beaten by a large majority that he discontinued his opposition to it. His objection was that a large tax should not be levied for the purpose of carrying on a war, which 1 Yr. Pitt we. intuit on carrying on, and Xi. Fox was equally intent on depriving him of the means of carrying it on. Mr. Fox failed In his opposttion to the tax on personal ! property, but he was equally strong is his opposition to that on real ;property. sad he succeeded. The cause of that success was this Mr. Pitt failed, at an earlier period of hie life, in carrying that reform in parliament which he advocated, and I have no doubt that if be had serried that reform and the commercial and manufacturing Wiriest' had been duly represented in the house in 1795, he would have carried both taxes when he clearly showed the inequality which prevailed by the pessinf of one. The right bon. pietism**, the member for Droturich, referred to a discussion on this eubject in 1842, and aeeseding to the reports which he 'pastime hon. members have madit it would seem to appear that I was one of the opponents of a legacy duty on real property. But on referring to what passed then I find my objections were of a different nature to those which have been stated. I said I objected to the proposition because it did not extend to settled property, and if you interfered with real property, that species of property ought to be made subject to the tax. My right hon. friend makes that extenaioa a part of his scheme, and I cannot make that objection to it. I made another objection then, namely, that the Chancellor of the Exchequer had made his finan cial arrangements for the year, and ss there was no tax on successions included in his ways and means, I was not so enamoured of taxation as to consent to any addition to it. That is not now the case, for the Chancellor of the Exche quer has made that tax a part of his plan, and I think he was acting wisely in so making it. (Hear, bear.) Now the question really is, whether we shall continue the tax on successions; and, if so, whether we will make it equal and just. The right hon. gentleman the member fur Droitwich seems to be suddenly struck with the injustice of the principle of the tax—(" hear," and cheers)—and he declares it to be contrary to toe principles of political economy, and he cannot bear that a tax on suc cessions should be imposed at a time when it is found diffi cult to encounter any new taxation. But the right hon. gentleman wrs not struck with the injustice, so long as the tax was imposed only on personal property; while that was the only property taxed, all the injustice and all the violation of principle passed unnoticed. (" Hear, hear," and cheers.) But the other day, I was speak • rag to a person on the subject of this tax, and he told me that he as the executor of a market gardener, who had left some chattel property to a relation, had paid the tax three times in two years. No doubt this, like many other taxes, imposes isms hardship, and therefore the right hon. gen tleman says get rid of the tax altogether. It is very easy to say get rid of it, but two millions are derived from it, and the right hon. gentleman has not proposed to get rid of it otherwise than by his speech—(hear, hear)—he says get rid of this bill, hut he does not propose to get rid of the tax as regards those who are now subject to it. (Hear, hear.) Even as regards that clause about which the right hon. gentleman was so excited that, in a tempest of declamation, he denounced it as pluuder— (hear, hear)—it the right hon. gentleman would look to the act of 1792, ho would see that it was provided that, if plate was left to a person who was prevented disposing of it, no tax was levied on it; but, if It was left with the power of disposing' of it, then the tax was payable. hat it exactly the.prineiple adopted by my right hon. !Arvid the Chaos tenor of the Exchequer with 'regard to timber, and nearly the same words are used as in the bill of 171.12 with re gard to elate. Bat the right hon. gentleman who felt no lad it;- nation on the cut feet of the tax as applied to plate is sud• denly most indignant when the same principle is applied to timber, merely because it is attached to land. Well, therefore, it does seem to me, that if you mean to melee this tax at all consistent and equal you ought to adopt the princit I. of this bill. It is quite another 'natter whether, in ;considering the bill in committee, you shall think the clauses such as are quite adapted to carry into effect that object; but I think the house and the country will generally agree, that if you have a legacy duty or • succeseion tax at all, it should be applied to all kinds of property ; whereas, now it is not a tax affecting personalty and not land, but one affecting personal property in some instances and not in others, and affecting land in some in stanree and not in others ; and exercising a power altoge ther capricious and unequal with regard to property. But, however, hon. gentlemen have been much transported upon this question. The hon. baronet who has just sat down predicted very fatal effects if a tax of this nature were carried ; fur he thought that our institutions would be put in jeopardy if such a prepaid were agreed to. I must con fess it seemed to me that the only jeopardy in which mar institutions were put has been by the language used by the right hon. baronet the member for Droitwich (Sir J. Paklagton) and another right hon. gentleman the member for Lincolnshire (Mr. Christopher) on the subject of the other house of parliament. (Cheers.) Not only have they com plained of the decision of that house in not at all ambi guous terms, but they divided them into two parts; and while they were tolerably satisfied with the conduct of the temporal peers, they condemned that of the spiritual peers, in a manner that somewhat alarmed me, lest a motion which we heard of some years ago for relieving the bishops, as it was called, of their functions in the House of Lords— (laughter)—should again be brought forward, and by the elequent support of the right hon. baronet the member for Droitwich, should be carried in this house. (Laughter.) Such, however, being the case, I trust that the right hon. gentleman will not pursue his opposition in so strenuous, and, I may say, so vehement • manner, but that this will be considered as one more attempt to revise a part of our taxes, and to make them more fair and equal ; and that as the proposal has met with the general approbation of this country, so to-night its principle will reeds, the sanction of this house, and that you will not have to be ashamed any longer of the present state of the legacy duties. (Cheers.) Mr. W. E. DUNCOhIBE bespoke the indulgence of the house for his " maiden speech." He thought that before such a bill should have been brought io two questions ought to have suggested themselves to the government—firsr, was it just; and, secondly, was it necessary? The former question seemed to him to admit of but one answer, and that in the negative. The landed property already paid not only more than its fair share of the general taxation of the country, buts vast amount of local imposts from which personal property was wholly exempt. (Hear, hear.) The Chancellor of the Exchequer had stated upon a former oc casion that he must either extend the legacy duty to real property or abolish it altogether; and he proceeded to argue against the latter course on the ground that he could not afford to sacrifice the two millions and a half of revenue which it produced. Now it appeared to him (Mr. Dun eombe) that there was not that paramount necessity far maintaining the tax. His right hon. friend (Mr. Disraeli) had proposed to abolish no less a sum in the half malt duty, and he thought, therefore, that the Chancellor of the Ex chequer was not compelled to have retained the tax on suc °miens, much less to have extended it to landed property . He (the hon. member) besought the house to render equal justice to all, otherwise they would soon find that their Amsted free trade was • fallacy, and their financial system • delusion. The Chancellor of the Exchequer on a former occasion in reference to an observation which had fallen from the hon. bare. (Sir J. Pakington) emphatically declared that they bad had enough of glass legislation ; but the re cords of parliament could not show an instance of a mea sure more calculated to prolong the war of classes than the right hon. gentleman's own proposal. (Hear, hear.) A more extraor Mary scheme than this never proceeded from a government calling itself liberal-conservative ; for so liberal and so conservative was it that in many instances it would lead to the borrowing of money to pay the tax, and to the confiscation of property which had been in the possession of families for centuries past. (Cheers.) Many bon. gentle men had objected to the budget of Mr. Disraeli, on the ground that it turned a surplus into • deficit, end then im posed new taxes to make it good. Surely then all those hon. members would vote against a proposal in which the deficit was to be covered, not by a house tax of 800,0001., but by an extended legacy duty of 2,000,0004 a year. Bir E. DERING did not wish to claim for the landed interests any privileges which were not possessed by other classes. Oa the contrary, he thought it was the duty not only of the government, bat of the house, to place all the interests of the country on a footing of the most perfect equality. (Cheers.) He did not hesitate, however, to say that the bill was entirely wanting in equity and justice. (Cheers.) He entirely coacuered with the right hon. gentleman in thinking that some tax should be laid on successions; but the right hon. gentleman bad failed to show that there was any connexion between the abstract principle and his measure. (Hear, hear.) The landed interest had fair share of burdens. If a succession tax were needed, let it be fairly imposed, and accompanied by those mea sures of relief which were so much needed. The right hon. gentleman would then have the support of the landed interest, and would add strength to his government. (Hear, hear.) The house then divided— For the motion 268 For Sir J. Pakington's amendment Majority The house then went into committee pro forma, and several amendments were inserted. SAVINGS BANKS BILL. The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER, in moving the second reading of this bill, said it was a measure about which many persons felt particularly anxious ; but it would be unreasonable in him, after the long debate they bad just had, to detain the house with any statement of its general objects, the more so as he did not believe there was any in tention to contest its principles. He wished to be governed by what might appear to be the general wilt of the house, but he would suggest that the more convenient course would be to read the bill a second time now, and to allow some time to elapse before the committee, when he would propose to take the discussion. Mr. VANCE objected to the second reading without a full statement of as purposes and objects of the measure. He considered that It sdould have a retrospective operation, so that those poor persons who had suffered fiom the defal cations °flowing' banks might be repaid their losses. Mr. H. HERBERT thought the hon. gentlemen was defeating his own object by opposing the second reading of the bill. If he wished the bill to have a retrospective ope ration, the proper course was to allow the bill to be read a second time and to move a clause in committee to carry out his object. Mr. OROGAN hoped the appeal of his hon. colleague (Mr. Vane!) would meet with the attention of the house. Mr. BOTHERON said that the statements of the right boa gentleman might be made on going into committee. He hoped the house would allow the bill to be read a se cond tams now. Lord C. HAMILTON expensed a similar request. He thought that the settlement of the general question of saving banks would pave the way for the compensation which his friends the members for Dublin asked for.(Hear.) Mr. °EACH said he would not oppose the second reed ing of the bill, but he hoped be would not be precluded thereby from opposing many of the provisions of the bill which be thoeght objectionable. The bill was then read a wend time. SAVINGS BANKS ANNUITIES BILL. This bill was reed a second time. CHATHAM ELECTION WRIT. On the motion of MT. M. SKITH, a new writ was ordered to be issued for the el.ction of a new member for Chatham, in the room of Sir F. Smith. COMMON LODGING HOUSES BILL. This bill passed through committee pro forma. BAIL IN ERROR BILL. This bill passed through committee. PUBLIC WORKS LOAN BILL. This bill was read a second time. BANKRUPTCY (SCOTLAND) BILL. This bill was read a third time and passed. TAXING OFFICERS, COMMON LAW BUSINESS (IRELAND) BILL. This bill, as amended, was considered, and ordered to be read a third time. BOROUGH OF SLIGO . Mr. FITZGERALD moved the issue of a new writ for the borough of Sligo, in the room of Charles Townley, Esq., unseated hthe decision of a committee of that house. Mr. BUTT moved the suspension of the writ for a fort night, oa the ground that the Sligo committee had ordered the evidence taken before it to be printed, and that such evidence had not as yet been laid on the table. The hon. and learned member contended that both bribery and in timidation having been proved, and the committee having ordered the evidence to be printed, it would be premature to proceed with the writ until the house had all the evi dence before it. On the question being put, Mr. V. SCULLY moved the adjournment of the debate till that day week. Mr. M. O'CONNELL seconded the amendment. The bowie then divided— For the adjournment Against it The amendment was accordingly carried Mr. BUTT then moved that the debate be adjourned unlit next Monday week, the formr amendment having now become an original motion. After a short discussion the second amendment was with drawn, and the debate was adjourned until this day week. BRITISH SUBJECTS AT SOUTH CAROLINA. Mr. FRENCH, pursuant to notice, called attention to the habitual imprisonment of shipwrecked sailors and others, British subjects, being persons of colour, by the authorities of South Carolina ; and ho moved for papers, being the correspondence between the British end the United States governments, on the subject.. The prac tice was in direct contravention of treaties between Great Britain and the United States, and was, further. against the law of nations. (Hear, hear.) Be hoped that a wiser Foley would soon be adopted on this question by South Carolina; and if the interventioa of the federal government was not practieable, the pro- tests of the 11130111 civilised world should sullies. (Rene, hear.) What in South Carolina was asked to be done Louisiana had already done! %nit in order to have what was tlesieed to be acoompliehtd, 4uslish captains anti masters and owners would willingly euTmlit otirolsted ngulatione. The United St a t es government vas ten.lin% % squadron to Japan simply because Ateerimn 'allots ships *react' on the Japanese coast were improperly treated; and at the present period, therefore, h.. d i d not see wha t ground the South Carolina government conlJ have for not doing away with the present odious system. (Heat) The motion was agreed to. The house adjourned at a quarter before 2 o'clock. CUT. etwil I r s +r , • P h ' it ° 4 ' 4 ' ;4° TO CORRESPON!,ENTB. leernet Itttition .1" The Exprem," ecmt:tame " a pan,. ft er. i r tr . Garette," la publiabed every Turvday anj Friday .i . ' t•. :, time Mr poet. • intended for The Evi rem," Lento', „ g a p e r smart he at the Ornee, 10, Boar/rip-wren, by Two o.,i,Nk 4y of publication. HIGH WATER AT LONDON AIt!P.M!. Tits D tT—lktoin:ag. ........ Aftern e , )n. i-iiozary —Morning, 76.516+. ........ Paterlico2. LONDON, TUESDAY, JUXE U. THE short-comings of the ('oalition Cabinet have, —frequently since they took office—been sufficiently manifest. But often when those who wished for more decidedly-liberal Ministry were most inclined to find heavy fault, there: arose an almo,t reproach. ful recollection of the fact, that the present Govern ment were the first to propose an extension of the Legacy Tax to real property. If th e Coalition would not do all that the progress of political intelligence demanded, they were at least ready to get rid of one disgraceful anomaly of our fiscal system, and to say that henceforth the lands of Fifty Thousand-a-year Dukes and Thirty Thousand a-year Squires should no longer escape the impost which has regularly pinched its morsel out of the Forty Pound-a-year of the widow, or the Hundred Pounds legacy—often the sole fortune—of the orphan. If the Coalition have not been ready to do very much else they are at least the first Cabinet that has had cou rage and honesty enough to say that fair play shall prevail about the Legacy Tax by the abolition of the flagrant injustice of allowing any mil lionaire accumulation of property in land to pass to a new owner by death without paying a sixpence to the Exchequer, whilst every fraction of personal property, is, without exception, taxed under similar circumstances at rates varying from one to ten per cent. On this question of the Succession Duties the Ministry may therefore be said to enjoy the full and hearty support of all sections of Liberals, and—it might be added—of all honest men of all parties. Any doubts that may exist in relation to the Ministerial plan on the subject can refer merely to the point whether or not the measure pursues its just object sufficiently far. About supporting it so far as it goes, there can be no shadow of hesita tion. In short, the proposed extension of the Legacy Duty to Land is the gem of the whole Budget, for the sake of which the public and the liberal section of the press were willing to judge with leniency many of Mr. GLiDSTONE'S other and less sound or welcome propositions. But what may be grateful to the people may be hateful to their feudal lords, as the House of Commons of:eu bears wit ness. The landowners last night found a champion in Sir JOHN PAKINGTON, who talked very heroically to a very thin House for the purpose of showing why rich inheritors of land should still escape a tax long paid by those whoinherit every other kind of property in the kingdom. As advocate-general of the landed interest the ex-Colonial Secretary did the best he could with the brief entrusted to him. But the result was wretched enough. He protested, and scolded, and exhorted, and denounced ; he conjured up those worn out departed stalking-horses " burthens on land" and " justice to agriculture "—and made all the use he could of the worn-out claptraps of landlord agitation.. But not an argument worth notice could he bring to bear. He inveighed against Legacy Duties in gene ral, and said he would rather they should all be repealed than be extended to his clients. No doubt. But if all Legacy Duties are so very mischievous, why did not the Ministry of which Sir J. PACKING TON was a member propose their repeal when in office? Sir RAIN and his friends did nothing of the kind, and it is clear that the evils of this mode of taxation have only been found out by the Tories now that they are asked to sustain their honest share of the burthen. All the objections urged against the extension of legacy tax to real property bear with equal force against the long-endured legacy tax on personal property. If Sir Joi.; PAKINGTON'S speech, then, has any weight, it would go to the exemption of wealth—real and personal alike—from future pay ments of the kind in question ; the man who comes into possession of a large fortune of which he has not earned a single shilling, or for which he has done no sort of service, either to the man from whom he inherits it or to society at large,—this for tunate individual is to be relieved from the payment of all contribution to the State whose laws secure to him the quiet possession of his unearned wealth, whilst at the same moment the day labourer is, with Sir J. PAKINOTON'S full leave, to be taxed upon his beer and his tobacco—upon his tea—upon the house he lives in, and on the newspaper or book he reads, and on almost every other of the few comforts of his laborious life. This is the "Country Gentleman" notion of equity and taxation; this the Conservative view of the way in which an equalisation of imposts should be fought against and avoided ; this the leading idea of the Derbyite Opposition to the best item in Mr. GLADSTONE'S Budget. In the highest flight of his anger the ex-Colonial Secretary declared that legacy duty hereafter to be drawn from a Duke or any other great landed proprietor who 'by fortune of birth comes into possession of a huge rent-roll—that money demanded of such a man by the law in the same way that the law now deducts ten per cent. from a 501. legacy given to a faithful old servant or to a helpless young orphan child —money so paid by a Duke or Squire, or landed proprietor, great or small, "would (says Sir JOAN PAKINGTON) be plunder." Did they call that a tax ? Ile called it plunder. If they carried out that clause, with all its detestable ma chinery, it would be plunder, and not taxation. By clauses 42 to 45 inclusive, what were trustees, • guardian., and others called on to do ? They were re quired to given full and true account of all the property, and all such other particulars as might be necessary or proper for caabling the commissioners Cully and accurately to ascertain the amount due. If the commissioners were not satisfied with the amount sent in, they might cause an esti mate to be made by any person or persons appointed by themselves, and upon that estimate might assess the duty. Dreadful necessity horrible law scandalous GLADSTONE. What does he wish " trustees, guar dians, and others to do ?" asks Sir JOHN. " They arc required to give a full and true account of all the property." Fearful atrocity. For on that account the duty may be assessed. Traders of all kinds have long been subject to be assessed in this manner—so also have leaseholders of each degree—so have inhe ritors of all and every description of personal property whatsoever. Bet now to talk of mating " trustees, guardians, and others, to give a full and true account" of lands and timber thereon startle , the Derbyito Squiro into so violent a fit of hysterical Parliamentary indignation that he can shriek only 'detestable machinery" and " plunder, plumlc., plunder." . _ The pretenaed anxiety of Sir JOHN lON