The Express.
London, England, 1851-08-04 00:00:00

gilt entftliiii.

TO CORRESPONDENTS.
♦!Veen! Edition at" TM Est:weal." enrama-g t•ta I midair*
"U.r tte," as pantioned coney Turainy tll Fraday night, in time
Mr pont.
eet torment. 'Wended foe "me London ETching paper,
M
want la s: the Oak* IQ, ea
tsßouverie.est, by Two tic.a..ck on the

HIGH WATER AT LONDON BRIDGE.
TKO UST—Montle". fib. Sloe. ........Aftersone. 3. 23i.
To.iwunw—Moruieg. Th. Ma. Afters/am, 23m.

LONDON, MONDAY, AUG UST 4.

WIIEN Mr. lit'stE's motion for a committee on the
income and property tax was carried, a fierce storm
broke over the head of the honourable member for
Montrose. lk was alternately taunted and abused
for having carried his point against ministers by the
aid of tones and protectionists.
Mr. Beset, with his usual equanimity under such
visitations, set his committee to work, and prosecuted
his inquiries. until an unlucky attack of sickness
prevented him from attending to his parliamentary
duties. In his absence, a series of resolutions was
submitted to the committee, on his behalf, by Mr.
C'olsomr. They were in effect : that considering the
advanced period of the session, the proceedings of
the committee ought to be closed; that the evi-
dence taken, though incomplete, ought to be
reported to the house; and that a committee
ought to be appointed next session to con-
tinue the inquiry. Mr. Dishaut moved as an
amendment on the second resolution, that it was not
expedient, in the very incomplete state of the in-
quiry to report the evidence to the house ; and this
amendment was carried, six members of the com-
mittee voting for, and four against it.
The members who voted for the amendment, in
addition to Mr. Irises/A himself, Mr. BARING,
and Mr. Vist:Y, were the CHANCELLOR of the Ex-
ellEmit El:, Mr. WILSON, and Lord HARRY VANE.
Now, if it was wrong in Mr. HOME to co-operate
with tories and protectionists in obtaining the ap-
pointment of the committee, was it right in two
members of the administration, and one of their
surest votes, to co-operate with tories and protec-
tionists in frustrating the object of the committee?
Mr. Busts: did not take counsel with the tories
and protectionists when he made his motion. The
motion was neither intended nor calculated to pro-
mote any of their objects. They were nevertheless
' pksised, unasked by Mr. RuME, to support it. Was
Ur. Ilesty. to abandon a motion made in the inte-
rests of the liberal party because the illiberals chose
to acquiesce in it? If such a rule were once adopted,
it would at any time be in the power of the illiberals
to frustrate liberal measures simply by supporting
them.
But the ministerial members of the committee
sup ported a motion of the tory and protectionist
lender. That motion, it is but natural to assume,
was made in the interests of his party. The conduct
of the CHANCELLOR of the ExcnEot•En, Mr. WILSON,
and Lord HARRY VANE, has been very different
from that of Mr. They have not adhered
to emotion of their own, undeterred by the equivocal
assent of the party opposed to them on principle;
they have followed submissively in the wake of their
opponents and lent them assistance. Mr. Hume
followed out his own
.policy without troubling hie
head about what the torten thought of it ; the CHAN..
I CELLOR of the Exeltritevn, Mr. WILSON, and Lord
HARRY VANE have abetted the policy of the !oriels.
Let us look a little more closely into the merits at
these proceedings.
The friends of tree-trade and financial reform sup-
port on income and property tax, as necessary, to the
carrying out of a free-trade policy. The tones and
protectionists oppose the income and property tax, in
the expectation that if it is repealed high and dil-
ferential customs duties must be re-imposed. But
the free-traders and financial reformers call for cer-
tain modifications in the income and property tax,
as at present imposed and lee ice], on the ground that
its inequality of pressure, and oppressive mode of
collection, make it so much disliked, that there is a
risk of its repeal being carried unless these defects
are amended. Ministers, however, for some cause
or another, have obstinately refused to entertain the
question of its amendment.
There are, therefore, three parties in the House of
, Commons in relation to this question. 'there are
the supporters of the income and property tax
in its present form: the advocates of an amended
property and income tax; and the opponents of
any income and property tax. With a view to
eunqml a fair consideration of the question, the
renewal of the income and property tax has
this session been voted only for one year. And
with a view to throw light on the ..subject against
the renewal of discussions next session, Mr. Hew:
asked for and obtained his committer. The object
of the free-traders and financial reformers is to throw
as much light on the subject us they can, in order,
by promoting intelligent discussion, to facilitate
such improvements in the mode of assessing and
levying the tax as may render it popular, or at all events
more tolerable. The object of ministers and the pro-
teetionists is to keep the country in the dark ; the
former in the hope that they may escape the trouble-
some task of Improvement, by compelling free-
traders to choose between the income and property
tax as it is and the risk of a return
to customs duties virtually protective ; the latter in
the hope that the inequality of the income and pro-
perty tax m iy lead to its repeal, and a return to vir-
tual protection.
The game played by ministers is short-sighted and
ineardous. By helping Mr. Disttat:tt to suppress
the evidence already taken by the committee, they
have increased the difficulty of having the merits of
the income and property tax intelligently amid dis-
passionately debated next session. To indulge their
own indolence they have given the protectionists an
additional chance of undermining that impost so
essential to the successful prosecution of free-trade
policy and financial reform.

Ir the session of Issl has been unfruitful in mea-
sures of practical importance to the empire at large,
it cannot he said to have passed without manynotable
prsjects of legislation for that put of her Nt \JEsTYIS
dominions called Ireland. If the Home Department
has been somewhat inactive, the Irish office has been
I more than usually busS.: and if Sir ALEXANDER
COCKID RN has been taking things easy, Mr. At-
torney-General II y reit ro. has had his hands full of
work of various kinds and descriptions.
Since the two houses met in February last no
fewer than eight bills, earls of them involving prin-
ciples of moment to the contentment and prosperity
of the inhabitants of the sister kingdom, have made ,
their appearance on the parliamentary parade-ground,
and have each in turn been ridden desperately as the
Arra( de ',attain, of the government. Of these the
mortal remains of two have been already left upon
the field, while three of the others have been
sorely maimed and mutilated by the remorse-
i less hands of those Irish members who
oiliest to the retrograde and landlord policy
to which the present rulers of that country
appear to be daily more and more devoted. A bill
professedly intenaed to secure an uniform system of
Irateable Yaluation of property was introduced ACVE,
sot months ago by Sir W. SoMOMI.LF, and the
, object being on all sides felt to be desirable, no op-
-1 potation was given to its earlier stages. But when
e the details came to be sifted in committee by men of
I anyirlding fidelity to popular piineiOes. like'
Plr. S. Clowroun and .Mr. Room it became
palpable that, without a complete recasting of '
the entire measure, it would serve only to stimulate'
the reactionary social schemes which the shameful
details of the recent census prove to be in progress in
every portion of Ireland. It was shown to be a bill
• for the further depression of the towns for the ad-
. vantage of the owners of agri;ultural property, and
as between the different classes of the latter, a bill
for the heavier taxation of tillage in exoneration of
pasture. After an obstinate resistance, this most ob-
ectionable project was abandoned.
Another and a butter hill--that for the municipal
gusernment of the minor towns—soon afterwards
\shared a similar fate. but under somewhat different
circumstances. Objections west raised by the ever-
wakeful spirit of landlordism against the measure, on
the ground that, as the improved health, cleanliness,