The Express.
London, England, 1851-07-08 00:00:00

sfie ',y fie•

TO CORRESPONDENTS.
I Sewed Fstitian • f "The Ezprees," oonteilung 'he sale evening's
o' Gazette," is publi.bed every Tuesday and F missy night, in this
for poet.
Aden.
ached for The Irshrses," Loudon Erenieff paper,
main he &Were, It/, Bouveriwntreet, by Two o'clock on the
day or publication.

HIGH WATER AT LONDON BRIDGE.
Tie DAT-110tmillg. n. Arcerwm. 10h. la.
To-—liorains. Lob. 40111. ARKIN...as Ilb. 15es.

LONDON, TUESDAY, JULY 8.

LAST night, Mr. EWART moved as an amendment
on the first clause of the Inhabited House Duties
Bill, certain additions to the exemptions already in-
troduced into the measure. Mr. SLANEY supported
the amendment, on the ground that it would pro-
mote the erection of improved lodging-houses for
labourers; Mr. ALEXANDER H.tstiE, on the ground
that unless it was adopted, parties in Scotland, who
have been exempted from the payment of window
tax will be obliged to pay the house tax. 'rho
CHANCELLOR of the Ext.:oE44lsEu was inexorable.
He declared that " all exemptions to this tax arc bad
in principle ;" and went so far as to say, that if those
proposed by Mr. EWART were conceded, "he might
Just as well bid good bye to the tax altogether, as
far as Scotland was concerned." On the ground of
the injustice of all exemptions, the CHANCELLOR
also opposed the motion subsequently made by Mr.
HASTIE in favour of school-houses, lecture rooms,
public libraries, lee.
In making this resolute stand, Sir CHARLES WOOD
was quite right. As Mr. IlustE. had previously re-
marked, all such exemptions would only lead to
evasions; and whatever merit a house tax may
possess, consists in its being certain, general, and
equal. How comes it, then, that the CuAscEm.ou
of the Exelimiren becomes oblivious of his anti-
pathy to exemptions in the case of agricultural
buildings? When Mr. LOC/ULM asked what was
to be understood by the term " farm buildings,"
Iwhich are to be exempt from the tax, Sir CHARLES
RiMply replied " all the buildings that are actually
used for farm purposes." This is a pretty sweeping
exemption clause to have been introduced and to be
maintained, by a gentleman who is of opinion that
" all exemptions to the inhabited house tax are
bad in principle."
Nobody, however, in the House of Commons
appears to have been struck with the glaring self-
contradiction of the minister of finance. Mr. HEN-
LEY muttered applause : "he was rejoiced to hear
that explanation.' And nobody presumed to ask
whether what is sauce for the goose is not sauce for
the gander; whether the denial of exemptions to the
inhabitants of towns ought not to be extended upon
every principle of equity to agriculturists?
The truth probably is that Sir CILARLES WOOD
and his sessional measures of finance are considered
incorrigible, and that no one cares to undertake the
task of mending them. His budget of ways and
means has been by dint of much pushing and haul-
ling rendered a little less unshapely than it was
when first produced ; still it is but a bungled busi-
ness at tho best. It was so radically bad that it
defies entire amendment, and people have got sick
of trying to lick the ungainly cub into shape. They
despair of making a silk purse out of a sow's ear, and
make up their minds to let things take their course
for this session at least.
This dispondent resignation to something exces-
Nicely annoying and disagreeable is very natural,
but is it prudent? Prosperous though the state
of the revenue undoubtedly is, there are symptoms of
coming confusion and perplexity. The national
finances were cleared and re-adjusted by Sir Itour.irr
PEEL, and by him handed over in a manageable con-
dition to his successors; yet for three successive sea
sions have we seen the Cit tNCELLOR of the EXCHE-
QUER produce budgets which were unable to stand
the scrutiny of a very acquiescent House of Com-
mons, and which have in consequence had to be pulled
to pieces and re-constructed as well as the urgency
of time permitted. If, as seems not impossible, the
national accounts again get into a state of confu-
sion, what are we to expect if Sir CHARLES WOOD
is to continue to preside over the Exchequer?
The state of the revenue we have said is prosper-
ous—unequivocally prosperous. True there is a
decrease in July 1831, as compared with
July 1830, of 210,7391. on the year, and
95,334/. on the quarter. But it must be kept
in mind that in July 1830 there was, as
compared with July 1849, an increase of some
two millions on the year and half a million
on the quarter. And notwithstanding the
reductions of duty in the departments of the Ex-
cise and Customs, still in progress, there is this year
in the latter no greater decrease from the returns of
last year than 25,1221. on the year, and 15,4901. on
the quarter; while in the former there is a positive
increase of 122,2731. on the year, and 94,5831. on the
quarter. In the Post-office, too, there is an increase
of 74,0001. on the year, and 30,0001. on the quarter.

These facts, combined with the prosperous state of
oar exports, and of the imports of the raw material
far our manufactures, and the articles of most gene-
ral consumption, betoken unequivocally a steadily
advancing national prosperity, for which we are in-
debted to the advances made of late years towards a
system of free trade.
Yet amid all these favourable symptoms, others of
a different character may be seen emerging. The
cloud " no bigger than a man's hand" may be discerned
in the horizon, though the sky overhead iscloudless. In
the item of stamps there is a decrease of 2:•55,2501,
on the year, and of 65,2751. on the quarter; in the
returns of the property-tax, there is a falling off to
the amount of 106,4181. on the year, and 49,95-11. on
the quarter. Ilad the re-distribution of the stamp-
duties, originally proposed by the Citsser:ttos of
the EXCHEQUER, at the bidding of the Chairman of
the Board of Excise, been adopted, the loss in that
department would have been still greater, and with-
out the compensating alleviation of the burden of
stamp-duties, which has benefited several branches
of commerce. And, as the excise and customs re-
turns, and the returns of trade, show that the aggre-
gate property of the nation is increasing, the
decrease in the receipts from the property-tax arc
only attributable to the consequences of those
inequalities in its incidence—provocative of evasion
—to which the CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER and
his colleagues cling with such blind obstinacy. The
falling oil' in the revenue for the year and
quarter just ended, as compared with the
revenue of last year, and its corresponding
quarter, are clearly. attributable to the injudicious
management of the CUANCELLott of the EXCHEQUER.
And the unwise fashion in which he is playing fast
and loose with the principle of exemption in his new
house-tax warrants well-grounded fears that we may,
next year, witness a further diminution in the na-
tional income.
The forebodings which induced Mr. GLADsTONE to
speak and vote as he did on Mr. DisittELL's notion
would seem to be but too well founded. Though
the nation is prosperous, and likely to continue so,
the accounts of the CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER,
his arrangements for preserving the due balance of
income and expenditure, appear to be rapidly getting
into a state of entanglement. The financial quacks
who aim at establishing a system of quasi protection
under the plea of financial embarrassments, have
caught scent of the coming imbroglio, and are impa-
tiently, biding their time. The financial pilot who
has thrice narrowly escaped running the vessel of
the state upon quicksands and shoals in fair weather,
may be called upon to try his skill in a storm.