The Express.
London, England, 1848-03-25 00:00:00

TO CORRESPONDENIS.

4 A sub...esti,- 14 infornsssi that, ion .411 e the. iletailoi senr(
tho Lemloa 14liarsi Matta Is inuittal in UM early ..1 the
when dd. micurs, it Ls ins arl.this hooted in a 400,,
qUellt
• Auvernsrsonos Intesite4l tar The Swim; Load.n evesiiif papsr. must
.lae at tip Ole, • 0, b•rovPoniflrKt. by Two Jewel! on I P.0.W.,

MOD WATER AT LONDON 0111 DOE.
Tete On —Mot rove. V We. pew e; Afternoon. 0. mi.. pr.t S.
To nosuvr—Mdlunag. .0 =lamb 3, Afmntoo., 0 mlO. pavt

LONDON, SATURDAY, MAR. 25.
THE recent divisions on questions of finance have
unequivocally manifested the views and tendencies of
the new House of Commons. how far an ap-
proximation, or a wish to approximate, may obtain
among the influential members of the only two parties
which seriously claim its allegiance, or any sections
of them, it is not necessary tor our purpose to inquire.
Enough, there exist no insuperable incompatibilities
of principle to prevent their fusion, at any time that it
may seem to them necessary or advisable. And as
for the great majority 01 the members, though some
may lean to the old whig houses, and others to the
fragments of the tory party as re-constructed and
liberalised by Peel, it is beyond dispute that they have
set up their rest at moderate whiggery, and are !or the
lresent, at least, resolute not to move onward. The
eaders of these two sections may occasionally taunt
each other, but both they and their followers are at all
times iendv to unite against, not only radical pro-
posals, but also any definite practical measures to
which they please to apply that (in their vocabu-
lary) dialogistic term.
We should be wanting in our duty to the country
at large did we not warn this majority of the Com-
mons that the temper of the times is too ticklish
to admit of pursuing the old jog•trot of a routine po-
licy, and evading discussions of its utility or wisdom,
instead of meeting arguments fairly, or yielding to
them. A great majority of the middle classes
throughout the empire had made up their minds
to submit to the income tax in its un-
modified form because they saw no way to help
themselves. Out of this mood of passive acquies-
cence they were startled by the proposal to increase
the per centage of the tax. The consequence was
such an unmistakeable expression of feeling as in-
dated ministers to withdraw their request for an aug-
mentation. But the actual deficit, and the prospec-
tive difficulties of the year we are entering upon,which
were assigned as reasons for the proposed augmenta-
tion, are still there. How are they to be met ? Are we
to trust to the chapter of accidents! Are we to make
up our mind to an increase of the debt and jog jollily
on in the path of bankruptcy ? Or are we to retrench,
at least until days of prosperity return, and bring our
expenditure to a safer balance with our income?
These are questions which parliament will not be
allowed to shuffle aside. The country expects that it
will set itself in earnest to the task of reviewing our
expenditure in the mass and our income in the mass,
with a view to re-adjust the incidence, increase the
productiveness, and diminish the burdens of taxation,
and to render the apnropiiation of the revenue more
efficient and generally satisfactory.
Ministers are to get no additional taxes this year;
of that they are now convinced. They may be able
to resist demands for reduction, but any increase is
beyond all reasonable hope. Their experience during
a former term of office of the power of deficits
recurring year after year to shake public
faith in their competency to administer the
public affairs, must intake them anxious to avoid once
more splitting upon that rock. What, in these cir-
cumstances, are they and their friends, and generous
semi-hostile rivals in parliament to do?
There is nothing for it but retrenchment. And
where are they to retrench? Parliament cannot see
its way clearly, because parliament has no distinct
conception of the manner in which the public income
is annually appropriated. Not half a dozen members
knew how much our judicial establishment, our
public contributions to promote education, our diplo-
matic and consular services, our colonial adminis-
tration cost us, one year with another. Nor will
they know until they oblige all our heads of
departments to render annually a distinct specific
account of what is proposed to be spent by '
each, and for what return of services. The prime
minister's, or his chancellor of the exchequer's,
opening speech on the budget ought no longer to be
the be-all and end-all of ministerial explanations, but'
merely a comprehensive general introduction to the
detailed statements which the members representing
the various administrative departments are to submit
in succession. There ought to be a clear account
rendered of what each department of government is
expected to cost during the next year, and of the
state of efficiency in which that expenditure is ex-
pected to place it, by each minister. The Secretaries
of State for Foreign Affairs and the Colonies
ought to supply detailed accounts of their home and
foreign staff, and what each coots. The Secretary of
State for the Home Department ought to be assisted
by several heads of departments a minister of
justice, a minister of education, and so forth—in
making a clean breast after the same fashion. When
the Commons have thus been put in possession of all
the exigencies of the year, they will see clearly
where expenditure may or ought to be diminished,
and also the points where it might be with advantage
increased. In times of pressure like the present they
would thus be able to see where that retrenchment—
temporary or permanent—which is required se
prevent the national finances from getting into dis-
order, may most easily, and with the least detriment
to the public service (if nut with absolute advantage),
be effected.
We will not take upon us to affirm positively that
the result of this proceeding would be an immediate
diminution of national burdens. We believe that it
would show the possibility of considerable sayings,
but we do not insist upon that topic, for it is irrele-
vant to the present question. The frank and intelli-
gible explanation of national charge and discharge
would, in the first place, enable ministers to save
where saving was possible, in order to be more
liberal where liberality was advisable; and it would,
by removing all suspicions of mystification inse-
parable from the present slovenly system, induce the
public to bear with more resignation such burdens as
they had been brought to ace were indispensable.
In short, the public at large is impressed with an
uneasy sense that the public accounts are stated in
parliament in such a way as to render them unintelli-
gible to all who are not practically conversant with
the minutest arrangements and anodes of trans-
acting burliness in public offices. Take, for example,
the naval estimates, which are so often held up as hav-
ing received the last improvement in respect of preci-
sion and accuracy. Let any man out of the Admiralty
offices endeavour from this document alone to form a
conception of what amount of naval force is re-
quired, and what is to be its probable distribu-
tion. It is impossible ; and yet, if such infor-
mation is withheld, how can parliament be said
to be pat in possession of the grounds upon which the
money is asked ? And if it is not put in possession
of these grounds, how can parliament, consistently
with its duty, vote away the money ?
Whenever such information as we now point at is
I required, men's mouths are stopped by reference to