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

(Front the Morning chronicle.)

As every objection which Lord Derby entertains to
the Succession Duty Bill goes to the root of the measure,
inexperienced bystanders may wonder why
the House of
Lords was not asked to throw it out on the second read-
ing. The reason is simple, and perfectly intelligible.
His lordship held so many proxies that he might have
found himself too strong. In committee, however, only
the peers who are present can vote ; and, as is shown by
the Government majority of against the first amend-
ment proposed, the result of the mode of attack chosen
by the chivalrous ex-Premier wits sufficiently certain to
secure him against the inconvenience of a ruinous victory.
Even the shallowest and dullest members of the party
appear to have comprehended and seconded the prudent
policy of their leader. It is true that no amendment
could reconcile Lord Winchilsea to the provisions of so
odious and infamous a bill. Rather than consent to a
tax which compels the
.proud barons of England to bear
their share of the national burdens, the conscientious
earl would have divided alone against the second read-
ing, if he had only been present. But he was not pre-
sent on that solemn occasion ; and, considering the faci-
lities for locomotion which exist in all parts of the
country, we may fairly assume that any peer who was
not in his place stayed away on Purpose. Lord Win-
chilsea, after all, acted with as much. sense and honesty
as the eloquent leader of the Opposition.
Lord Derby utterly denies that, during his own Ad-
ministration, any scheme for a succession duty was
under consideration ; but he can scarcely dispute the
fact that his Chancellor of the Exchequer made, without
contradiction, an exactly opposite statement. It is
highly probable that both ex-Ministers have spoken the
literal truth, except that the intentions attributed by
Mr. Disraeli to the Cabinet ought to have been repre-
sented as confined to the breast of one individual mem-
ber. The ex-Chancellor of the Exchequer may have
made up his mind to try some fresh experiment in finance,
without thinking it necessary to consult the ill-informed
colleagues who were certain, at the proper time, to fol-
low his direction. The subject may not have been dis-
cussed in the Cabinet, yet the bite Ministers may have
been practically pledged to a course utterly inconsistent
with their present arguments.
Lord Derby has no quality of a good party leadet,
except an entire absence of scruple. Uniformly timid,
and generally rash, he rarely fails to compromise his
character for judgment, at the same time that he carefully
guards himself against the possibility of obtaining a seri-
ous advantage. Having rendered victory impossible by
refusing a contest on comparatively favourable ground,
he gratuitously publishes to the world the selfish policy
which his party would follow if their power seconded
their wishes. It might, in a certain sense, have been worth
their while to make an effort which would have embar-
rassed the Government, rendered new combinations neces-
sary, and displayed the formidable power ofthe Opposition.
But what advantage could under any circumstanees result
from the avowal of iwpotout injustice, it is for Lord