The Express.
London, England, 1852-12-14 00:00:00

itr tt-74r431:e4a.'-:).

TO CuataioP,liDENTs.

t • turf Selo. Tl;74•reet::;;:i7.asnit.;e eame etenli.ee
Genets'," as et tAislitel leer; Tom.ler tr. I Yndaj siaht, thee
Ode p.m&
I•T !MOO Potetweaded toe "77. e Ezereer,"l,o top p Ter,
Itnet 4.t the ihhhy int roeseete-etrect. Two on the
lay of yakieetica.

tilUli WATER T I.ONPON BRUNIE
hn Du—Vorrin:. 3 SY • . furetoos , 4h. Me.
To.mortaw—Ntori.lpr. 4n. 44g. AtttrGo o, 1%. la..

LONDO', TUESDAY. DECEMBER 1-1.

ONE of the features of last night's debate is the
curious and instructive contrast exhibited by the
speeches of Mr. Cuenex and Lord JOUN MANNERS.
It was the antagonism of reality and dilletantitits ;
of common sense and political foppery ; of power to
grasp the substance, and the helplessness of incapa-
city. But apart from the intellectual disparity be-
tween the two speakers, we are forcibly reminded
throughout of the difference between the antecedents
of tne two men. The member for the West Riding
speaks for his class with the vigour of conviction and
the force of truth, derived from intimate and practical
knowledge of the wants and wishes of the great body
of the penplc. Lord JOHN :MANNERS talks like one
who would fain be praised for condescending
to take care of the interests of the
many, without being certain what those interests
are. Mr. COBDEN, speaking in the name of
the millions whose meaus of subsistence are to be
affected by the fiscal changes now in discussion,
utters with instinctive precision what they would
say for themselves were it possible to take the sense
of the country on the various items of the scheme.
And first, with reference to the doubled and ex-
' tended House Tax. It is plain, us we took occasion
to observe some days ago in arguing against the in-
equality of this form of direct taxation, that practi-
cally the pressure upon property consisting of houses,
amid property consisting merely of land, would not
only be different, but utterly and intolerably dissimi-
lar. Mr. COBDEN reduces the reasoning to comparative
' per centages, and shows that a sum of money vested
in land renders the possessor liable only to three per
cent. contribution in direct imposts, while the same
sum iuvested in dwellings or in shops would, under
the new system of finance, subject the possessor to
something like twenty-one per cent. Both descrip-
tions of property pay three per cent. Income Tax :
but dwelling houses are already charged ninepenee
in the pound, say four per cent., in addition. flu
it is now proposed to double, or in other word, to
burthen house property with nearly eigh' per cent.,
beside the three which it bears in common with land.
And inasmuch as land usually brings thirty years'
purchase, while houses seldom produce mare than
fifteen, it is manifest that a rateable charge upon the
income derivable from each must full with double
pressure upon that which consists of bricks and
mortar. In other words, town is to pay six or seven
times as much as country.
This, then, is, in point of fact, the measure of the
fine which the landlord party would inflict upon the
towns of Great Britain for having wrenched from
them some six years since the right to buy food at its
real value, instead of a monopoly price regulated by
act of parliament. The naked enormity of the
scheme is thus laid bare. Were the resolution now
before the House of Commons to be affirmed, the
CUARCELLOR of the Exalt NUM would immediately
after the holidays bring in a bill to early that resolu-
tion into effect. Such a measure would simply be a
bill of pains and penalties against the industrious
classes of this country, of which the preamble ought to
be a recital of the net of 1846, whereby the Corn Laws
were repealed. Nu wonder Mr. DISR.A ELI and his c.d.
leagues demurred at the phraseology of Mr.VILLIEss's
memorable resolution. If it was .‘ wise, just. and
"beneficial" to enact Free Trade in food uncondi-
tionally in 1846, it cannot be right to come down
now to exact under mystified terms and novel forms
the old price from us. " You may call it compensa-
" tion," said Mr. COBDEN. " but it is nothing atter all
"but protection over again." It is an unin eessary
and unrighteous tax, levied not for revenue but for
rent; and this is the reason why it is certain never
to receive the deliberate sanction of the legislature.
What the fate of the preliminary resolution may be
depends to some extent on accident, and in a still
meter degree on the intensity with which
the whip is applied during the next few
days or hours. fo escape the ignominy of
defeat at the very outset of their financial career,
no efforts or inducements will of course be spend by
the present occupants of power. But were a nominal
majority, by fair means or foul, obtained to-morrow
in support of what may be called the abstract prin-
ciple of the scheme, Ministers would be as far as
ever from accomplishing their dishonest purpose. To
carry a measure like that which Mr. ()ISRAELI has
shown to place in the first page of his Budget, lie
would not only need a clear and reliable majority in
Parliament, but he would need come potent spell
whereby opinion out of doors should be thrown into
a deep sleep. There is fortunately as little chance of
his being able to count upiri the one as the other;
and hence the insidious offers unoffiei .lly thrown
out in certain yeerters that the shnnieless change-
lings arc ready in this—as in ether mattes—toe icld
to the will of the country. The H.dget may yet
withdrawn.

We trust the country will be spared the waste of
time and temper which the carrying of even this
initiatory resolution would involve. The
juggle of taxation has united against its authors J
men of every shade of political opinion. Confirm.'
tory in many leading points of the views expressed
by Mr. COBDEN and other Liberals, we have the
matured experience of n financier like Mr. Gout,-
Hoax, the • rati lent ILA ass:atant of Sir Roextur
PEEL iu all his great alyssums of fiscal and financial
reform. The right hon. gentleman told the
house last night thst he felt hound to
disapprove of each item of the lkrhyite Bud-
get,
with tho single eseep•ion of the modification
of the duty on tea. With respect to the Hop Duty
we very much incline to the opinion that, consider-
log the inherent vicionsness of the mode of collection
and the uncertainty of the revenue derived there-
from,
there would he wisdom r.nd justice in the Rho- ,
lition of it altogether. The cultivation of the plant!
now too capriciously and unfairly taxe.l would in all
probability he soon extended 't) a considerable degree;
and experience shows that there are few crops in
which at is more tlesirteole to insure, by this natural
and free method, tle aoasitsge, of a more sway
land equable supply.