The Express.
London, England, 1852-03-06 00:00:00

Mr. HERRIEB. That this,
with the view of --

Ili will be DO 'Play
eventually , on import
r that thtvp. for repo, pot
se pee • end 411
ut still their speeches
papist memory.
uterine to

duties and showing that they
putsetion. The protect'
11.11114 d such intent
now
boo long 'leaped ei •
die taking off the' k • may plias un-
questioned and unfathomed by a host of
people, who will merely rejoice at the fact,
air somidelse with what far more onerous tax
dm bask is to be filled, and an excuse found far

surreptitiously undermining the principles of free-
trade. Had Sir CUARLEs Wood last year intro.
dated • rational and equable modification of the
income tax, the removal of the whole burden now
by the tories would not have been to them a source
of popularity, and at the same time an assistance to
their selfish and party views.
' There is certainly no more startling event of our
time than the circumstance of the government hav-
ing been handed over to the chief of the high mo-
narchic. tory aristocracy, and that chief, the very
first time he declares his principles in parliament,
makes it known, that he, of all other financial and
fiscal systems, has adopted that of the most democra-
tic republic. What the United States have invented,
that Lord DERBY has adopted.
Now, every one knows what is the fiscal system of
the United States and the reasons for which it has
been adopted, reasons that ought to be meet remote
from influencing such a minister as Lord Denay.
The great weight of taxation in America, as the
great disbursement of revenue, is local. For public
works, for education, for militia, the funds arc raised
and spent by each state, and are supplied by direct
taxation. The American willingly pays money for
purposes of which be feels the necessity, and for
expenditure, of which ho can see the outlay. But
for the general expenditure of the Union, the Ame-
rican will not pay directly. Neither will he suffer
an excise. All he tolerates are the Customs, which
being upon foreign luxuries, or foreign commodities
which compete with some of his own, ho has
hitherto been blind enough to consider the fairest
object of taxation.
The American finance minister is thus compelled
to supply the general expenses of the central go-
vernment by import duties. But he does so in sheer
necessity, in the absence of any other source, and he
does so only till the people bemuse fully alive to the
truth, that it is cheaper to pay even the central
government directly, than allow it to support itself
by doubling the price of implements, of habiliments,
and of all that the American soil does not of itself
produce.
It is remarkable that since the broaching of this
American scheme of finance by Lord DERBY, scarcely
' a word has been said of it. The occupiers of the minis-
terial bench, addressing their constituencies, have not
alluded to it. Even SirJons PAKINGTos, who went
into the question of the sager duties, never men-
tioned it. He insisted that his sugar duty motion
was mere anti-slavery agitation. But surely if Lord
DERBY is to introduce a general tariff of duties on
all imports, from which he does not see the necessity
of excluding corn, sugar must make part of it. We
are not, indeed, to b.s favoured with even a sight
of this tariff fur the present. It would spoil her-
mony, shorten parliament, and interfere with quer-
ter-eLy.
But, af!er all, a budget cannot be made up from
two different systems of financial policy. Mr.
Disit %ELI is an able man at ambiguity ; but he is
not quite the god JANUS, to make us worship two
faces at once, looking different ways. The con-
tinuance of the income-tax even for a year will tell
the farmers a plain tale, viz., that they must not
hope for even a fixed duty of five shillings. The
allowing it to expire, and the demand of but one-
half, will be just as plain a hint to the free-traders.
What can the Times, then, mean by asking a
year's grace. for the protectionists? Perfectly neu-
tral or passive they cannot be. They must give
hopes to the agriculturists, and mast create fear in
manufacturers and traders; both of which hopes and
fears are facts productive of material, and commer-
cial, and pecuniary results. Surely it is better that
we should know what is what in 1852, than grope
about and conjecture what may turn out in 1853 ?
There are, indeed, many cases and modes of con-
duct which would have entitled Lord DERBY and
Mr. Dlfiltsell to forbearance on the part of the
liberals. They might have brought forward, for
example, a Reform Bill of their own. They de-
flounce finality ; they declare reform desirable, if it
could be ierfully introduced into the constitution.
What humbug liesin all their words, when at the same
time the men in practice scout every reform ! And are
we not entitled to consider them equally insincere in
their forbearant language towards free-trade? Sup-
posing even Lord Deur was sincere, what can he
do for the country •? From any other man, or any
other party, something may be hoped or squeezed ;
but nothing can be hoped from him except that he
turn out a trickster and a hypocrite. What a con-
tingency to wait upon!
But many worthy folks have been Toiled by the
recollection of what WELLINGTON and PEEL effected
for the liberal cause by means of an illiberal band of
followers in power. In the same way people hope to
see some great complement of free-trade IMO from
the office to which GEORGE FREDERIC YOUNG was
to be oppinted. People who hope this, may hope a
liberal constitution from Louis NAPOLEON, German
unity Or Italian indeendesce trap SCHWARERNBERG,
and courage or truthfulness from the Bing of PRUSSIA.
The most hopeless of all ministries is Lord
DEIST'S. The only mods by which they an im-
bibe a lesson of common sense is by a beat-
ing. They will never come to a conviction
that they have beet fools, u long as they are
in place, and parliament willing to leave them there.
They must be defeated, soon and signally.