The Express.
London, England, 1862-05-09 00:00:00

Cite erprtoo.

Advertfitments int;iieleT for " fie]
Paper. intuit be at tie aim 10,
o clock on the day of pahlioatios,

I" lend= bsnb
rWairest. kr/ Two

NATKANIZT.
Tata Erman, JOHN JOKE:I.—OWL AVIRICAN 00IININ.
Mama. Sotharn, lac.katona, 11. and lows : Yrs. C.
Young, Min ouvw.-1111 STAII. OF ANDALUSIA. Pares Nana
and Senor itkurdo.—And HUSBANIYB GHOST.

Tate grinned, THE LITTLI TiZASURX—TiII ANOXL
OF MIDNIGHT. Meson. Ryder. Potter, Shore, Jordan,
Wkklloomb, and Meadows Mesdames Fielding, Angel,
and neworthy.—And THRICE I[ARR/10. Male. Leclereq.

ST. WOW&
Tale ETEinsa A COZY COUPLL—PILNCZ AeIABEL or,
The nary ZOOM K 1 1. Mat.ltews, Delmore, and A hley ,
Wes N. Moore, ant F. Matthews, sal the Maws Nelson.
...And UNDER, THE ROSL—Commease &tn.

BRITANNIA.
Two t Tumid. OUR LOT IN un. L Lane ani
Cranford.—Entertainments by Mina ham and Mr.
THE BM OT TIM ORPHANS...And THIS BOOS 011 n.
YORESTRI.—Iar. and RYA Hantoon.—Cosubdnod at 6

HIGH WATAII AT LOSLIOS BAIDAL
THIS Dia —Morning. AA Altesseen, loh. Sm.
To-moaaow—licenhaA 10k. Altasoon, 11S. 104 e.

LONDON, FRIDAY, MAY 9.

MR. FORSTER was no doubt perfectly right in
saying that but for Mr. GLADSTONE'S recent speech
at Manchester we should have heard nothing
about economy from the Opposition benches this
session, not even the very doubtful and ambiguous
plea put forth last night by the Member for Stam-
ford, amidst the ominous silence of the gentlemen
behind him. The leading members of the party
are, indeed, very fond of criticising the financial
policy of the Government, and the CHANCELLOR of
the EXCHEQUER is unquestionably their favourite
aversion. And as their attacks on the details of
his financial schemes—his remissions of taxation
and sources of revenue—had uniformly failed, it
was of course always possible that in sheer despe-
ration, in total forgetfulness of their maxims and
traditions, their principles and policy, their
present career and future prospects, they
might some day be tempted to protest against
the amount of the expenditure as extravagant.
Hitherto, however, they have not, even in the
crisis of their bitterest party attacks, yieldedto this
temptation. A latent sense of consistency and
self-respect, or the lingeringhope of an early return
to power, has withheld them from denouncing
a level of expenditure they have loudly clamoured
for, and would undoubtedly do their utmost to
maintain. In his recent attacks on the CHAN-
czuka of the EXCHEQUER, M. DISRAELI never
ventured to hint at a policy of economy. While he
denounced the remission of taxation, he said not
a word against the high rate of expenditure, and
the only practical conclusion to be drawn from his
adverse criticism was, that had he and his party
been in power the country would have bad to main-
tain the same or a higher level of expenditure,
with an increased burden of taxation. This did not,
of course, tend to advance their interest with the
country, and at length, having voted the estimates,
and washed their hands of responsibility for a year,
they have determined to daily with the more
popular cry of economy. We must say, however,
that they have done so with characteristic vague-
ness and ambiguity. Sir STAFFORD NORTHCOTZ
prudently left the unwelcome topic to the close of
his speech, and even then, after a hazy reference
to the Income Tax, immediately relapsed into safe
generalities. Indeed he had so very little of a
practical or definite nature to urge in his new
capacity as the champion of retrenchment, that it
was difficult to see why he and his friends had
suddenly decided to play such an unaccustomed
and uncongenial part.
Mr. Dissarm's speech, however, sufficiently
explained the mystery. The movement was simply
one of those well-known combinations in which ,
the great party strategist loves to indulge. The
strong and growing feeling throughout the country
in favour of retrenchment evidently suggested to
his ingenious mind the plan of a subtle and com-
prehensive attack on the Government. If dex-
terously managed, it might furnish a plausible pre-
text for denouncing the whole policy of the Cabinet
since its accession to office, both in home and
foreign affairs. Under the convenient mask
of zeal for economy he might attack the
financial measures of the Government, bid
for the support of different sections amongst
the Liberal party, and introduce as
many elements of mischief and confusion as possible
into the discussion of our foreign relations.
If at all successful the attack might be followed up
by party manceuvres of the most promising kind,
and thus help to gratify the right hon. gentle•
man's passion for intrigue as well as his desire for
power. The temptation thus presented was too
great to be resisted. The right hon. gentleman's
main design was of course, as usual. elaborately
disguised, and of course, also as usual, the dis-
guise was so transparent that everybody saw through
it. Mr. DISRAELI probably never made a speech
which revealed more clearly his defects as a party
leader, or his radical incapacity for higher states-
manship. It was throughout an admirable filler
tration of that fatal superficial acuteness which
defeats itself. The right hon. gentleman can et
course detect quickly enough the growth and preva-
lence of a popular want, especially when it
refers to material interests. But be is unable to
appreciate, or even to comprehend, the deeper
feelings and more disinterested sympathies of his
countiymen. Had be been able to do so, be
would never have made the fatal mistake of re-
viling, under the mask of a popular cry, the main
principles and great objects of policy Englishmen
have moat at heart. Mr. Disaazu perceives that
there is a strong desire throughout the country for
retrenchment, and so far he is right. But if he
supposes that, in order to gratify this desire, the
country is prepared to abandon the principles and
repudiate the policy it has deliberately adopted, he
is utterly and miserably wrong. Yet this is
the fatal blunder he made last night. His
speech was an unconscious confession of the
blankest political unbelief. He said openly
to the House and the country :—" You want a
" reduction of expenditure. But expenditure de-
" pends on policy. Now, for the last two or
" three years you have unhappily adopted an ex-
" pensive policy. At home you have remitted
" certain burdens on industry, and these remis-
" sions are a dead loss to the revenue. Abroad
" you have negotiated a Treaty of Commerce
" with France, and this has involved large
" sacrifices. You have sympathised with the mis-
" chievous dream of a united Italy, denounced the
" temporal power of the POPE, and dared to con-
" sure the greet potentate by whom that power is
" supported. If you choose to occupy such a
" position, such a dignified and independent posi-
" tion—if you choose to oppose the Derma of