The Express.
London, England, 1853-05-14 00:00:00

On=Ori.

=

TO CtiIikIUIPOSbIINTS..

114 It 4 MOO ',Cable@
SWAN& SWF WIMN. Pal !tidily .ight. la um.

o as• • Aw." by towiwa
4 tir I:, • "64',FM. Milvorw*Th"l'
Aftl. Two °Week in yew, dr
t! pbt.st.r.

uwa WAIIEIt AT LONDON BELIDOIL
Till SC Ur. 311. 55a.
wise. w —mums& is. Vs.. 11b. 43m.
I

LONDON, SATURDAY, AIAY 14.

Wu l'sgiNwroN was last night very much
to be pitied. Ex-l'olonial Secretary of the Derbyites
—a veteran of Quarter Sessions—a leader of the
stuires—and a would-be holder of Tory power here-
snee. he was clearly bound to oppose the reform of
the Legacy Tax. He could do nothing less. It
his fate, his mission, his duty. His sense of I
English fair-play. might lead him to gulped the
falsity of his position— his feelings of w Miasmas to
bear an honest share of the public burthens--ade
biliif that the CU tNCELLOR of the Excite/0M
should have wherewithal to meet all needful
&elands on the public purse—might possibly
have led him, were he master of himaelf,
to acquiesce in the equitable claim of the nation
to have an equality of taxation on all succes-
sions. Rut to have admitted that, or anything like
it. would be to offend a section of those squires on
whom Toryism rt ets its last hope. So Sir Joule
p‘hixffroN made a speech in which he strove to
show that we all, in 1853, should go onpepTazotaz
a Legacy buty on every kind of
property—upon everything won by industry or
amassed by trade, or occupied for manufactures, or
used for the employment of labour, or the enrich-
ment of the nation —whilst men like the imma-
culate Duke of NORTIII:MBERLAND, Or the consist-
ent Earl of Di:Rev, should be permitted still to in-
herit the lands of half a county without paying one
farthing of tax on succession. Anything more gla-
ringly unfair, more cowardly, or more impolitic it
is difficult to conceive. The orphans of the trader,
end the widow of the professional man, are to go on
piving their per centages, but the heir to an
Earldom or a Dukery is to inherit his rent-roll, of
sores or hundreds of thousands a year, scot free.
Can anything be more unjust, anything more mean
or ungeneraus than this? And as to its impoliey,
can the fendalists, who have hitherto enjoyed this
immunity from taxation suppose it to be wise to pre-
serve so glaring an instance of the fruits of class
legislation? is it wise for the richest and most
influential section of the community to maintain a
fiscal injustice they can very well afford to surrender,
when the result of its longer maintenance is to up-
beapa feeling of hatred upon them and their privileges,
which in any time of sudden convulsion might
bear fruits of retribution akin to those that
ripened in old revolutionary days in France?
Justice, honour, policy—all call for the equa-
lisation of taxes on successions. Sir Joust
P‘KINGTON thought it needful last night to pro-
nounce an oration against this view. But, though
he felt bound to speak, the House of Commons did
not at all feel bound to listen, and the ex-Colonial
Secretary, long before his labour of Obstruction to
Reform was over, had almost talked the House of
Commons empty. The bare benches offered to all
who saw them proof enough of the way the wind
blows even in St. Stephen'. The Income Tax being
thus far acquiesced in, the Legacy Duty Reform must
be allowed to follow, as its natural compensation to
the nation at large. The burthons of the one are
temporarily subnuttcd to with the full understanding
that the unequal pressure of the other are to be fairly
adjusted. So the country declares, and so the House
of Commons evidently acknowledged, when last night
they permitted the Tax on Succession Scheme to pass
its first stage without a division.
How could any other decision be come to ? Re-
garded in any light we please the propriety of an
equal Legacy Tax cannot be gainsaid. As a rule the
men who own the land of England are those best
able, instead of least able, to pay without discomfort
their fair share of taxation. The fact that an Earl
or a Duke, or a Baron ioherits a score of manors
given to his forefathers by Hamm VIII. out of the
spoils of the Church, or it may be by a monarch of
the Red Rosa from the plunder of the partisans of
the White, is surely no good reason why those manors
should escape an impost which every industrious
man's earnings are subjected to when bequeathed to
his widow or his children. Because the Front-de-
rifs have always hitherto evaded the Legacy
Tax, they are not surely to be allowed
to allege former immunity as a bar to future justice?
And then, too, the alleged burden of the proposed
tax on successions will not after all fall so heavily on
landlords as some suppose. Honesty will not be very
costly to the class now asked to pay their lair quota
of the national reckoning. One estimate put the pro-
bable yearly produce of the Legacy Duty on land at
400,0001.—D0 very enormous sum. We hope it may
produce much more; but, be that as it may, it is
clear the squires Will pay only in company with
a very large number of Other persons who
now escape the Legacy Tax without the excuse
even of belonging to the landed gentry. The per-
sonal property that now peon by deed, and not by
will, is very great indeed. This personal property,
if passed by will, would, by the existing laws, pay
Legacy Tax, but being conveyed by another legal pro-
ems it escapes the impost. This is practically an'
evasion of the law that will be cured by the plan of
the OM:MELLOR of the EICHIQUIR. It is very
common fors man to sign his will and various settle-
ments at the same time. Under the will the
property passed, of course, pays duty, but under the
settlements the (often greatly larger) sums escape.
When the landlords pay their Legacy Duty on the
inherited acres,they will have as companion-contribu-
tors to the public purse the large class now enriched
by successions under settlement. Indeed, the
greatest sweep will be made under the settlements,
and of course the greatest sums be paid by the people
so enriched by the death of others. Difficulties will
arise in discovering the amounts of property--scat-
tered as it i., and mast be, over the kingdom—under
settlements. The great reason for hoping that all this
will be discovered when it passes by death, and that
the public Exckquer will not suffer, is that trustees
will tell all they know for their own security. The
bill to be inUoduoed moat attend to this, by affixing
penalties on all persona ooncealing knowledge
needful for the proper adjustment of the taxes
falling due, and if the emu is made to rest on
trustees to see that the Legacy Tax is duly paid,
thee, for their own sakes, will seldom be ready to
abet any evasions.

The Lords

LORD DERBY'S as Go Nene of the
"great STAFFORD 'l' has aid Smother ingre-
dient to the unsavoury compositios midi the jour-
nals present every main to their readers. The
mixture daily becalms sore " slab and good," like
the hell-broth in " Nimbeth." In the morning, Lord
DZRBT appears before the Committee • in the even-
ing he scolds in the House of Lake the news-
paper reports of his evidence. His lordship being
asked whether he was aware of a statement that Mr.
STAFFORD had made, to the effect that he (Lord
Dem() and Mr. Minim had put great pressure
upon Mr. STAFFORD with regard to the disposal of
the patronage of the Admiralty in dockyards, replied,
—according to the report of the Globe,—" I have heard
with some regret some statements made by Mr. STAY-
vonD because I have a very high opinion of Mr. Sze**.
Fon) and his honour, and Mr. Brenton) must have
known when he made those statements that they were
entirely inconsistent with the practice of the Admiralty
and the rules of the service." According to the re-
port in the Sins, Lord DERBY is made to remark that
he should be very much surprised to hear that Mr.
firArroan had made that statement, because he had
the highest opinion of his honour and veracity, and he
must have known that such a statement was entirely
inconsistent with the fact, and that there was not
the slightest foundation for it." The reader will
observe that the only difference between the reports
lice in the different measure of belief attributed to

Lord Milne in the delinquency of Mr. STAFFORD.
" I very much regret that Mr. STAFFORD has said
sn," and " I should he very much surprised to hear
tout Mr. STAFFORD had said so," are the two forms
oi expression to which Lord DFIBT thinks it need-
ful to call the attention of the How of

Peers, and yet alt)Augh there is not any very
i:uportant diffe"..ence between the two, Lord
DERBY lut otght wished to establi►h a breach of
privilege against the publishers of the former report.
It is impossible not to recognise the utter meanness
of this outcry of breach of privilcge. Nobody, after
the evidence that has been reported. can doubt for
one instant that Mr. STAFFORD did, in some terms,
or other, excuse his interference in the dockyard
patronage by the plea of a pressure from without.
The Duke of Nowritt:unratAND who submitted to

be led blindfolded to the Presidency of the Admi-
ralty, and who professed what seemed to be even
more than ducal ignorance of business, was "aqut
sant" of the difficulties Mr. STAFFORD bad to_ en-

counter on account of the " want of sympathy"
between the Howe of Commons and the Board olf

Admiralty. Mr. DISRAELI, too, in his evidence,
descants piteously upon this " want of sympathy,"
and lets out pretty clearly that this was the subject
of anxious consultation between Mr. STAFFORD and

himself. Above all, the Committee quote Mr. STAF-
FORD'S own words to establish the Act. How is

it, then, that the great leader of the Conservative
nobility, with the proof that Mr. STAFFORD
did actually use words of a nature at
least similar to those which have been reported—
how is it that the " RUPERT of Debate"—is obliged
to gallop away from the scene of combat, and shout
" breach of privilege" in a bye lane ? For no other
reason, it is evident, than to create a diversion
under favour of which Mr. STAFFORD and Derbyits
delinquencies may escape attention.
Is not this a melancholy end to the "great Co.,
"erratic° party?" Its two leaders may recognise
their types in those honest gentlemen who formerly
dwelt in Field-lane, and now harbour in dens kesers
only to detectives and pickpockets, where they edotate
precocious juveniles in predatory accomplishment',
taking care to keep themselves as far as possible
from the clutches of the law. Mr. STAFFORD was
the Artful Dodger of the DERBY Ministry, and the
ex-Premier and the ex-Chancellor of the Exche-
quer represented the firm of Fagin and Co.
The proceeds of the dirty practice of the small
agent went to enrich the prime movers of the
concern, while a mere pittance was doled out
to the actual perpetrator. Mr. STAFFORD did all
the hard work, and his employers profited by
it. The instigators, it is clear, will do all they cam
to help their little friend who has fallen into danger,
but they refuse to sacrifice themselves. They talk
large, therefore, and endeavour to shield the culprit
—in the same boat with whom they feel they are
rowing.
There is one advantage to be derived from the
disgraceful exposures which have been made before
the Committee. Each of the parties concerned in
the dirty practices which have taken place during
the existence of the late Ministry will be bound to
explain his own share in these transactions, lest he
should be debited with the share of the rest. Thus,
the Duke of NORTUEMBERLAND is compelled to

.ccuse himself of the rawest ignorance, and 'the most
contemptuous disregard of the public interest, in order
to clear himself from the charge of actually meddling
in the foul practices which were going on in the
national naval establishments. Mr. DISRAELI tells
us in euphuistic phraseology that the great point for
a Minister is to guard against a want of sympathy
between the House and the Admiralty. He inti-
mates in tolerably plain terms that a "Board of
Admiralty, composed of the most able and effective
men, looking at what they call the service," but not
subservient to the Ministry of the day, is not exactly
the sort of institution that he considers the
best adapted for such purposes as a leader
of the House of Commons requires. He
would have a few of the " lords," mem-
bers of the House,—in other words, placed in a posi-
tion where they may be controlled by the Govern-
ment, and acquiesce quietly in Ministerial mismanage-
ment. The Earl of DERBY admits that although the
impoesible chief of her MAJESTY'S Government, he
dew nothing about the Admiralty, after he had
=the Duke of NORTHUMBERLAND—who also
ri nothing—at the bead of that institution. The
esimises of these individuals, added to the tales
wait ask may in time be induced to tell of the
°lbw, may at last give us a clear insight into that
mat astounding combination of political profligacy
that is recorded in the modern history of party—the
DERBY Ministry.
In the meantime what will Mr. STAFFORD do ? He
allows that he complained of pressure from without;
he allows also that he declared that Lord DERBY
and Mr. DISRAILI would not permit all patronage to
be in the bands of political opponents. This is his
own version, which he prefaces with an excuse for
deficient memory. As it stands, even this means
very little less than what he is charged with.
And yet Lord Denny, according to the report
of his own words which he endorses as
correct, distinctly affirms that Mr. STAFFORD, as
a man qf honour, could not have made such an ad-
mission. What, we repeat, can Mr. STAFFORD do ?
Will he sacrifice himself for the sake of those who
introduced him into bad company, and who sacrificed
him ? It is impossible to say. One thing is certain.
The disclosures that have been made, and are still
making, are the most crushing evidences of the utter
unfitness of the leader of the party which fell with
the late Ministry to conduct the affairs of this
country. Come what will, by no possible combina-
tion of circumstances could the nation ever again be
induced to entrust the Government in the hands of
men who will be held up to future are as the very
types of political debasement.
property, I

THE NEW EXCHEQUER BONDS.
(PROM LAST 1110112'11 GAZII7I.)

et her Majesty's Tres-

sury hereby give notice, to all whom it may eoniern, in the
exercise of the authority vested I. them by the third section
of an Act, passed in the present Med* of Parliament,
intituled "An Let et redeseeisir at sommatioi the
Annuity payable* the Smith Sea Oempowy, lei *risk
Annuities of three pftwas pet enema mammas, wad for
creating sew of three pease Ms ehiUimp per
centime per arm* sad two =4:seirt shillings pow
canna per asasth, est Bonds," that
they have eteentimed Misr 11421 inliequir Beads se
be hinted under*. authority of the aid Act then bear
hams% at literates( two peruse Meth Wen. pet Men
per annum, until the let ey d September, 1184, such
Bonds to carry *tarot dMmileest et the me of two panne
ten shillings. per cent= pet 11111. s udil the lit day of
September, is the year lthia thus to be *damnable at par,
at the option of the Leeds Osemmisioners of her Majmty's
Treasury only. so mew se Paellsmost shall have made due
provision in respect thereof. The interest as these Bonds
will be payable half yearly, es the lit of Much, and the
let of September, in nob year.—Whitehall, Treasury
Chambers, this 13th day at May, 1863.
W. IL GLADSTONI.
ALFILID HiIY3T.