The Express.
London, England, 1848-03-15 00:00:00

income tax could, and ought to be, more equitably
assessed, and by their voting against Mr. HUME that
they are wanting in that faith in their own opinions,
or that power of misting indirect influences which
enables a man to act consistently, we find thirty.
eight liberals, one conservative of the Peer.
tion, three conservatives of the protectioeist section,
and one nondescript. This shows beyond doubt
that the main defection on the second vote ha/
been owing to fear of giving umbrage to ministers,
or reluctance t. bear hard upon them. The thirty.
eight are made up, in pretty equal numbers, of old
stagers rather notorious for seeking credit by affect•
ins a certain degree of independence when the party
do not need their votes, and scampering tack to their
standard whenever it seems in danger ; and of new
members who do not yet understand the nature and
value of parliamentary ear-wigging. The former are
hopeless until the whole party move with them; the
latter may yet regain the ground they have lost> es
recruits who ran away from their first field have
been known to turn out good soldiers when custom
has hardened them.
The thirty-three members who voted with Mr.
Flume and against Mr. lionsmam number among
them no less than twenty-six protectionists; tees
conservatives of the PEEL section; and four liberals
—one of whom is a protectionist. For the eccentrics
movements of five of these gentlemen it would be
the height of presumption for any but themselves to
attempt to render an account. The game of the 27 pree
tectiouists is sufficiently clear; as also the fact that
this is nearly the extreme number that GRANBY,
BENTINCE, and DISRAELI are able to bring into the
field.
The nineteen who voted with Mr. lionsawr, and
did not vote on Mr. Hume's merlon, as also the
twenty who voted with Mr. HUME and did not vote
on Mr. HORSMAN'S motion, can only be regarded u
supplementary lists to the two last considered. On
both we recognise some who are known to have been
detained by unavoidable accidents on the occasion
on which they failed to record their votes; and as
this may have been the case with others, it would be
unfair to assume how their inclinations tend. But
the circumstance that the list of these absenteesfrout
the division on Mr. Hume's motion, shows 13 liberal,
and 2 Peelites, with only two protectionists; while
that of absentees from the division on Mr. HORSMAN'd
motion shows 10 protectionists, 9 liberals, and 1 non.
descript, sufficiently indicates the composition of both.
The result of this analysis would ihem to be that
in the present House of Commons there are at thistitne
rather fewer than 100 members who are prepared to
stand out for systematic and extensive financial re-
forms irrespective of party; rather fewer thanfiftywho
are inveterately bent upon perpetuating the protec-
tionist or anti-Peel schism in the conservative ranks •
and that the rest of the house, though some would
prefer Lord JOUR RUSSELL and his friends for minis.
tens, while others would prefer the disciples of Peet,
and others again may have visions of a coalition, are
willing enough to support moderate returns when
propounded by a minister, but will not budge a step
forward without such a sanction.
We say for the present, knowing how much cir-
cumstances, and frank, earnest, persevering advocacy
of justice can do to modify and change tee opuuons
and actions of a parliament. There are among the
more numerous section of parliament which timidly
clings round the two official phalanxes, mauy more
capable, from knowledge, to advocate useful
practical financial reforms,. and quite as ga-
mic in their aspirations for the public good, as
some individuals who have distinguished themselves
by their firmness, or, controlled b' their connexims,
have obtained credit for possessing it, on the late
occasion. But that very firmness is at times like the
present the most invaluable feature in the characters
of public men. To want it is to want everything.
Trusting that some at least of the laggards may e'et
nerve themselves, we refrain from adding to those
reproaches which they cannot but be venting in
secret against themselves.
Be this as it may, the next great occasions that
will call for the services of earnest financial reformers
in parliament are the impending discussions on the
estimates, or on the reports of the tar) committees to
whom the estimates have been referred. This subject
of consideration we reserve for a separate article or
articles.
Before concluding, there is one point of grave im-
portance upon which we would cursorily touch.
Wishes for out-of-door associations to urge on finan-
cial reform have been expressed in various quartzes,
and have already, given occasion to alarmist comments
in parliament. .Admitting to the fall extent the pro-
priety and expediency of such associations, when cir-
cumstances render them necessary, we must explicitly
declare that at present circumstances do not render
them necessary. Associations out of doors, for the
purpose of bringing the pressure of public
opinion to bear upon parliament,. are ob.
viously exceptional movements. They imply—they
can only be justified by—an experienced and otherwise
insurmountable derangement of the relations between
the constituencies and the representative body. Such
a derangement existed when the political unions were
requisite to obtain the Reform Bill, and again when
the Anti-Corn-law League was requisite to obtain
the liberation of commerce in food. But at present
the public which demands financial reform is retire-
seated in the House of Commons by a respects.
ble minority of earnest men entirely sympatbising
with it; while the retrograde or obstructive
phalanx is animated not by opposing convictions,
but by political connexions, or timidity, or mere
scepticism. In such circumstances there is reason
to hope that the reform may be worked out by
the ordinary regular forms of the constitution ; and,
while reasonable grounds for such a hope remain, we
are averse to the idea of having recourse to irregular
associations, with their inevitable drawbacks. Of
these drawbacks, we may add, the stir and mewl
which supply the chief objections to them with many,
have less weight with us than their tendency to
create and keep in existence a class of professional
agitators, and other instruments, who seek to live by
the trade.

COMMERCIAL distress, we are sorry to say, gains
ground in France. The upper and propietorial
classes are playing, too many of them, a selfish part.
The commercial and manufacturing world, who bad
embarked lar_ely in enterprises and speculations oa
credit, are paralysed—the more prudent equally with
the less so—by the depreciation of the best securities.
The lowest or labouring class, at the very moment that
it expected a mine of gold and of security in the re-
volution, has found idleness and starvation instead.
The disappointment may produce desperate acts, esp.-
daily when we consider what influence the working
class, or its chiefs, have over the Provisional Govern-
ment itself. But no cause has so contributed to the
present danger and distress as the disorganisation of
the finances by the late government of France.
There is no surer barometer of coming events than
the pecuniary and financial state of any country.
Their derangement inevitably portends political revo-
lution. As thunder is always preceded by the light-
ning flash, which points out a path in the dark, so
have the storms of society their warning. The revo-
lution of February was preceded in France by. a
leng•hened and profound discussion on the financol
distress of the country, which occupied min
successive sittings of the Chamber, and will
called forth the oratorical powers and the political
experience of all its eminent men. The discussion
clearly displayed the grave and fundamental errors of
LOUIS PHILIPPE'S policy, which in the treatment of
the financial interests of the country, as in the deve-
lopment or management of its liberties and liberal
spirit, had brought it to the brink of an abyss.
The budget presented by M. DUMON for the year
1849 estimated the expenditure at the sum of 1,32
millions of francs. But as the supplementary crePs
voted each year amounted to fifty or sixty millions
more, an expenditure of 1,440 millions of francs, or
nearly 38 millions sterling, was to be provided for.
Over and above this enormous budget re the
we
extraordinary public works, estimated at nearlY
another milliard, or 40 millions. So that the budget
of the Napoleon of Peace was quite as formidable
as that of the Napoleon of War. A floating
of well nigh another milliard came to complete the
account, a gigantic total, that affrighted the friends
of the monarchy, and of itself was sufficient to
resuscitate the hopes of all its enemies.
Whilst the last monarchic government of France
was thus eo lavish in its expo nditure, how did it fare
with its resources? Vert) those taxes, which raludi
sapplied the revenue, on the merease, so as to warran
so much confidence and prodigality. They Wel!
seriously cn the decrease. Thu reveLue of 11han
had been by rainy millions of franui less
that of 1846; Qui the revenue of loato debt