The Express.
London, England, 1851-04-12 00:00:00

mit lrprtoo•

TO CORRESPONDENTS.
balver bUtIMPIN:t M LWOW.. LOWS Lm. hi P."
taw tbt txuwto, ilammenw•Uall. b 11. a..at M thio
*I a 1;.60 maw,.

MOH WATER AT LONDON BRIDGE.
Tim Ws —Wombs, NS. I Vs.
T..somm—liersiss. 4. M.

LONDON, SATIRDAY, APRIL 12.

WE agree with every word that fell from Mr.
GLAtistost. last night. We could, intktd, scarcely
do otherwise, seeing that the opinions which he ex-
pressed of Sir CnAnt.f.s Wtsnis budgets urn pre-
tamely those which we expremed on Saturday last,
and which we repeated on Thursday. These are,l
that the year of renewing the income tux should have
been chosen by the t'n vie clinic for some notable al-
leviation of those taxes un consumption, whose elas-
ticity wonld compenstit e for momentary diminution. We
insisted, that the only value of the house tux would
be its universality; that it would only he good by
being productive. and only productive by its spread-
ink over a large basis. And this was. fully in Sir
twvaLLs WOOD s power, us the owners of houses of
from Itti. to 204 in the country towns were right

well able to pad• such a tax.
These objections we made a week ago to the revised
budget, and we have only to regret that Mr. GLAD.
sioNE's powerful yoke did hot urge them then, that
they might have produced some result, instead of
now stating and representing them ws hopeless to re-
cover. Mr. Gi.viisrosk. says that no material
amendment can he made in a budget, that a
minister alone can initiate financial measures,
and that a member of opposition or semi-
opposition like himself, durst not propose
such a clause as the extension of the
lonise tax. We must say that this is deprhing par-
liament of half its usts. Item are the two great
purties that pOSSe.II the largest numle•r of votes in
the Commons. Neither one nor the other have a
financier of capacity, and yet independent members
con only hope to criticise, not correct them. We
must protest against them. Had Mr. GfAus-roNE
Leen in his place two months ago and given the
country the full benefit of his suggestions and iimli-
tkat w,•dom me should have been better off, at least

tinuncial lye
Mr. th.tosiostE said, truly enough, that the in-
come-tax could nut be permanently maintained, un-
less it wen• reudjusted. We cannot admit, Imwever,
his despairing (*inclusion, that because lire and
PLEE had failed in udjasting it, yet that a
direct tax, levied in moportion to the means
of each man, is impossible. A tux upon
real or fixed property is feasible. A proportionate
tax upon moumod property, pu)ing regular interest,
is surely not difficult. I low to get at the floating
capital of the country, how estimate the profit that
it produces, and sip:mite that profit from the per
wand efforts and intelligence which go so largely to
the making of that profit - these are difficulties, no
doubt, but surely not insuperable ones.
(tieing up the income-tax as unfair and
ill-adjusted, and therefore not likely to be
p.m:went, Mr. 61..‘ 1..11 ON 1. the house
tax as the great Isisis of direct taxation, and as a
lauds on which a large weight would Is. brought to
rest, in order to tarry through the remaining and
neeessary experiments in nlorming indirect taxation.
We were too true prophets in our first of jections
started age. • t the house tax when proposed. We
then said that its danger lay in its being a mere tem
1111•11TVIlli-lit ur f amwhit nu which any amount of
taxation might be raised, whilst the window tax,
with all its iniquities, was one which, on account of
those very iniquities, could not he increased.
We do not agree in the opinion that the house '
tax is a tux on property. It is much more a tax
upon expenditure. But whether it be a tax on
property or a tax on expenditure, it is not a fair
bUsis for any large amount of taxation. It is u tux
that weighs almost altogether on the middle clamed.
And when Mr. I.‘at wen CUE lust night mentioned
the fact of forty-two large country houses which
under the window tax paid 2,010., and wider the
new house tux would 'sty lint :ytati., we must confess
we thought this one of the strongest argiunenta
against the change of the tax that could have been
adduced.
In the present age of blundering financiers, the
butlgtt that one accepts is, after all, a pis oiler—
tlw Item under the eiretanstain es. And one cannot
but be glad to see the window tax swept away, and
a house tax in ifs plus for a certain amount. We
think it should be graduated and extended, so as to
make it produce the twu williuns of the window
tax. and so not &trews: the amount at pre-
sent nitwit by direct taxation. But to make
any house tax the basis of a very heavy taxation,
much, 1.,r instance, as would be requisite to replace
the income-tax, that would be an intolerable in-

just
And this leads us to certain inferences that might
be drawn from Mr. Dicet,sioNes speech, which, if
cornet, would very much mar our approval of
and satisfaction with it. Mr. lit.ansroxo said,
frankly enough, that last P.4.l§Sioll he to upon the
pnaeetionists as having practically, though not for-
mally. abandoned proteation. and that inconsequence;
he was willing to juin in measures for relievinq the
agricultural interest of their local burdens. Ibis
year, said Mr. (itAusroNv., they are hot after pro-
billion attain, and are about to pursue that ',holdout
even through the mates of a general election. I
ithdraw, themforeoseid te, those coneessions in the
way of transferring loyal taxation front the land,
until I leiu-n that prohytion is definitively given up.
Mr. (liAtreric.ek looked evidently to there-consti-
tution of the gnat tory party OA the basis of ignor-
ing protection. That day, however, has not come,
and Mr. GLAtisroNE waits for it. When the
sacrifite is madc, and when the country
party are ready to forswear their idols,
and e'en their little household god of
a fixed duty, then Mr. GL.tI,:•TONE is ready to come
forward, and give them the advantage of his abilities,
perhaps of his lead. Now, we hope that when Mr.
Gt.aosroNs has accomplished this, he dots not in-
tend to sacrifice the present property tax, or any
property tax, as incapuble of adjustment, and
throw all the weight of direct taxation upon the
house-tax, which would certainly an exonera-
tion of the squires, and a throwing of the burden on
the monied and the middle clam. Mr. Otatarroot
surely cannot mean this; and yet his speech would
lead to the suspicion that he contemplated some
such arrangement.
We have dwelt on Mr. OtatisroNes remarkable
though brief risech; the discourse in which Mr.
btsit %EU opened the debate appearing equally to
want purpose or pith, and indeed to be without an
excuse for interrupting the natural order of the dis-
cussion. As Mr. Lewin-envoy piously observed,
" Enough for the day is the budget thereof."

Tut: recent election at Coventry is an instructive

The vacancy was consequent on the elevation of
Mr. GEORUE TURNER to the revived Vice-Chancellor-
ahip. Now Mr. TURNER was a member of the con-
aervative and protectionist party ; and he, at the
last general election, prevailed over Mr. W. Wa-
LtAsts, who had nut only his radicalism but consider-
able put services, to recommend him to the electors
of Coventry. Hitherto the metal practice has been
for the party in whose ranks a vacancy loses • vote, ,
to attempt at least to supply it by a candidate
of their opinions —as may just now be seen at
Longford, Enniskillen, and Aylesbury. But,
though the tory party was never more closely
and unscrupulously cared for in its eketion-
ening interests than now.—when, according to
M ERRANTI, its very chiefs and leaders do the
work usually entrusted to " whips" and runners,—
the conservatives " wired" Coventry on this occa-
; they made not the slightest effort to provide
lotion with • succcwor to Mr. TURNER there;
nips& Coventry to free trade. Here, than, we