The Express.
London, England, 1848-03-10 00:00:00

NOTICE.

- -
Tits number of STAMPS issued to the DAILY NEWS
by the authorities of the Stamp-olfice, during 1847, was :
From Jam. 1, to Doc. 31, 3,447,009
This, we believe, is within eight per eerie. of the number
issued to the Morning Herald, Morning Chronicle, and
Morning Post, ALL PUT TOOPTHIEL
In addition to the above, issued to the DAILY NEWS,
Morning Paper, there were issued for the Evening Edition,
THE BXPItESS,
From Jag. 1, to Due. 31 778,714
Which was more, we believe, than were hatted either to
,the Globe or Standard, Evening Paper..

TO CORRESPONDENT&
.4/wt....newts lateltet.4 fee t' The Tames." tt,..ttkS sNr. mo.'
b. at the elks. ItlßoarertotureTt. ►) T‘,. ..0.1.1t N tka a., of tt WAWA..

MOO %TATUM. AT LONDON lIIIIDOS.
Tv,. Mt —Mambo& NJ4 Gun. 666 t b Altawa. 4:511u. Put 5.
To-llonsow—ltoW6. W. 544 t 6 . Miaow. 2 i 661•. pan 6.

LONDON, FRIDAY, MARCH 10.
Tnis evening the debate on Mr. Ilusiz's proposal
to let ministers have their uniform income tax, but for
one year only, will be renewed. The division on Mr.
HUME'S motion will afford a good many liberal and
independent constituencies not a bad test of the trust-
worthiness of their representatives. Without positively
asserting that it is easy to find an able and enlight-
vied legislator, it may be received as an axiom that
it is much more difficult to find ono of firm charac-
ter. Men of the best d'apositions, and with the ut-
most exemption from selfishness, are sorely tried in
parliament. No sooner do they give an independent
vote, or betray an inclination to give one, than they are
beset with whispered remonstrances. Their good
nature is appealed to—" would they press bard upon
ministers in their difficult position ? " Their
prudence is invoked—" would they run a risk of ex-
citing the public out of doors by discussing delicate
questions on such an emergency ?" Their earnest-
ness is quizzed—" will they make themselves re-
markable for Quixotry by a' ' at impossi-
bilities ?" They aro not put upon their guard by
open deliberate attacks upon their integrity, but they

are bewildered into half-conscioue
Now, the member of parliament who undertakes-to
do the people's work must be proof against all this tam-
pering, and as few can be expected to be so, it is in-
cumbent upon constituencies to be on the alert to
counteract its influence by the strong motive of fear
of their displeasure.
The independent members who supported Mr.
HoasMAN's motion for a more equitably *mewed
income tax" have lived in a perfect parlia-
mentary purgatory ever since Mr. Ileue's motion
came on. Their duty with regard to this latter mo-
tion is clear and unequivocal. Ministers, relying on
Sir HOBERT Pees's support, have refused to concede
a more equitable assessment of the income tax this
year. Ministers, backed by Sir Roamer PEEL, will,
there can be little doubt, prevail upon parliament
to grant them, under existing circumstances, a re-
newal of the income tax. There remains, therefore,
for those who seek to have it equitably assessed, only
the resource of having it granted fur the shorter.t par-
, sible period, in order that they may renew the
discussion as soon as possible. It is worth
while making the attempt, for there is the
chance that those who are on principle
opposed to the income tax may support
them, inasmuch as they also will naturally wish
to have an opportunity of renewing the argu-
ment as soon as possible. With this chance—be it
great or be it slender—in view, the member who sup-
ported Mr. HORSMAN'S motion, and shrinks from re-
cording his vote in favour of Mr. HUME'S, lays him-
self open to the imputation of not being sincere in
his advocacy of a more equitable assessment of the in-
come tax ; for he who wills the end must will the
means, provided they be honest. Let all consti-
tuencies, therefore, whose members voted with Mr.
HOKSMAN, keep their eyes upon them now. If they
are not found voting with Mr. Home, the presump-
tion is that they have been ear-wigged—that they
are of a yielding disposition, and tameable by paw-
ing—that they are not made of the stiff obdurate ma-
terials required to work out important reforms.
This question of a more equitable assessment of the
income tax is a vital one. It is a question upon which
strenuous resistance is to be expected from official
UM. Its importance is shown by the fact that Lord
J. RUSSELL felt it necessary to descend into the arena
to throw the shield of his protection over an uniform
income tax, and that Sir It. PEEL felt it necessary, in
turn, to hold his shield both over it and Lord JOHN.
This is a touching modernisation of the old Hemet ie
picture of the lesser AJAX shooting his arrows from
behind the buckler of the big one.
Lord Jona started with the proposition, " The
state assumes that all classes are equally bound to
bear its burdens." True ; but the state does not
assume that all classes are bound to bear them equally.
The very income t'x Lord Jolts is defending takes
more from a man with 1,0001. a year than from a man
with 5001. a year. And all that the advocates of a
more equitable assessment ask is the carrying out of
this principle, so that unequal values shall not be,
squally taxed. This proposal Lord Jolts seeks to
evade, by arguing that it is impossible to ascertain
the exact value of every indixidual income—to ask
whether a man's estate is free and goes to his daugh-
ters, or entailed and destined to some alien male. It
is impossible, and this minute scrutiny is not asked
for. But the distinction between incomes preceding
from the interest or profits of capital, and incomes
received in return fur personal exertions, is broad,
tangible, permanent, and susceptible of being ap-
proximatively estimated, without' recourse being
had to special inquiries. All idea of distinguishing in
special cases, such as alluded to by Lord JOHN, is re
hnquished because it is impracticable; but such dis•
Bodkin, is insisted upon in classes of cases because it
is practicable. Lord JOHN sheltered himself behind
political economi-ts and their differences of opinion;
but the task undertaken by those abstruse thinkers
and by the practical statesman are quite different.
They may go on refining as long as they like, because
they do not profess to act. At the political economy
I club the subtle and somewhat dreamy intellect of the
author of the volunteer budget, published a year
lor two ago, may wrestle with the logical in-
tellect of him who canvasses omitted topics of po-
litical economy, and the representative of northern
economical science may try to bawl them both down
by oaths, as "over-reseed"—a charge which certainly
cannot he made either against him or his doctrines.
And this wrangling may extend to the day of doom,
and no one the worse. But the statesman is called
upon to act, and where a perfect system is not to be
had he must put up with the next best. Lord JOHN
ought to remember this, and accept his uniform tax
for one year, on the understanding that the tax will
be renewed for a longer period as soon as he consents
to assess it more equitably. Fur to tell the Commons
of England, as he did on the night of Mr.Hoasstatt's
motion, that he " will not accept a tax" except upon
his own terms, is rather presumptuous language for
an Enelish minister to use.
Sir HOBERT PEEL argues in support of a uniform
income tax on the ground that to make any distinc-
tion between means derived from realised property
and professional incomes would be to tax capital, not
property. This is an idle play upon words. When
it is proposed to tax property instead of income, or
incomes from property at a higher rate than pre-
carious incomes, nothing more is meant than that the
amount of a man's property should be the standard
by which he is to be assessed. Every prudent man
will endeavour to limit his expenditure so that his
property tax shall be paid out of his income ;
and the improvident man will frequently have
to pay his income tax out of his property.
The rationale of an income tax is this: The
state protects (or ought to protect) every citizen;
the man of property in the possession of it ; the man
of no property in that confident assurance of perssnal
security which is required to give free play to his ener-
gies. The state, in short, is the direction of a great
mutual assurance company, and every citizen ought
to pay a premium in proportion to the value of what
he has insured. The owner of property, on this prin-
ciple, ought to pay in proportion to the income he
derives from it, which is a permanent annuity. The
man who lives by his industry (of head or hand) ;
ought to pay as iu possession of a precarious
terminable annuity—ought to pay not in propor-
tion to his actual income, but to a permanent
annuity of the same value. It is revolting
to hear Sir It. PEEL coolly arguing against this
equitable arrangement that a great many existing
taxes spare property; that in the case of the window
tax no distinction is made between the capitalist and
the man dependent on his industry for support. This
is affirming that two blacks make a white; it shows
that Sir HOBERT has not yet entirely emancipated
himself from the selfish delusions of the section of
society of which he was formerly the champion.
The question is a vital one with the toiling class of
society; and no flinching or compromise will be
tolerated on the part of those members of the
House of Commons who have aspired to
the honour of advocating the cause of jus-
tice. We do not exhort constituencies to mark
recalcitrating members, who having stood firm with
Mr. HORSMAN may desert from Mr. HUME. The
constituencies are on the alert already. Liverpool
has taken Mr. CtIIDWELL, and Manchester is about
to take Mr. MILNER Glesox to task for delinquencies
on this head already perpetrated. This is setting to
work with a double barrel, and bagging a reelite at
the first and a Russellite at the second shot, with
laudable impartiality.

Ost of the most fatal doctrines that can be enter-
tained or preached on the subject of revolutions, is
that which attributes every popular triumph to a
want of firmness and unflinching courage in the mo-
narch. The Times has preached this doctrine with
respect to the recent revolution in France, the success
of which it attributes to the weakness of LOUIS
PHILIPPE in dismissing M. GEIZOT, and his subse-
quent cowardice in abdicating. By these arguments
our contemporary would imply that M. Gutzon
might have successfully resisted and put down insur-
rection ; nay, that Louts PHILIPPE himself, by simply
refusing to abdicate, might have retained his throne.
All these assertions and suppositions are founded
on error. No force of talent or resolve could at any
period of the memorable week have enabled M.
Gutzon to triumph over the Parisians. M. GtIZOT
WWI an object of detestation to lower and to middle
class alike, to the national guards as to the operatives ;
and no body of French troops could have been got
to fire upon and massacre indiscriminately all classes
of their fellow-citizens.
The King, therefore, in dismissing M. Guam, acted
wisely, and indeed could not act otherwise ; and had
he, the moment that he dismissed GuizoT,
summoned Taints and BARROT, and given them
fn powers, the emetite would have been stayed.

But the King lost a day with Mote, and that
•
night in higghng with 'Pumas ; and when the sssssr
ing of Thursday came, the troops were eo de
ised and starved, and nuprovided, having ilea%
food nor ammunition, that Marshal Bunuto, wheal/
his daring, declared that the military means prove%
for checking the [mute were insufficient ewe
to the extreme of beiig ridiculous. Had the moldier',
in this state of things been left at their poei
in the streets, they would i.ive fraternized aid
the people : indeed, they were already doing la
and to recall thin was indispensable. eetaa'
their recall, after the capture of the Palais Royal sal
the Chateau d'Eau, when the advance was made
the 'Tuileries, for the King to have refused to at:
cate would have been merely the signal for tit I
massacre of himself and all his family—and %
whether he actually escaped from the Tuileries,
not. Every one of the royal family might have bin
followed and captured. Instead of which, the peft
of all was favoured ; and the Duchess of Oatuii
with her son, was escorted oat of danger by ens
the members of the Provisional Government, ela
provided her with funds, resiored her her jewels, IN
behaved to her as a loyal and generous cavalier.
The danger of preaching that popular insane*
can always be put down by royal or nunisterial fun
ness or obstinacy, need not be pointed out. A
xample is not wanting, for CHARLEi the Tem ;
tried it. He changed no ministers at the list •
ment, he recalled no troops ; his orders to the
were to sweep the streets with grape. He pad s•,
ten or twelve thousand of his troops personally *
tached to him. All perished. And FO willran
monarch or minister, who dares the enmity of ball
looter and middle classes. No parlianseanr/
forme or majority can save the ruler ees
risks this. The plan of covering it ibegl
and arbitrary government by a tort m•jorey
has merely had the tffeet in France of mining au,
the parliament along with the throne ; and here Ins
M. Guizor's mistake. He trusted too much in dis
name of the chambers and the possession of a asis.
rity, forgetting that a majority which ideatifita ited/ ;
with a government, and shares its selcautages Wei
unpopularity, incurs the same risks and tempts as
same aggressive measures for its deetraction. Lots
Piiittere and M. Guizor trusted too much to ea
majority of parliament, a, d imagined they were it
England. They were in a quite different sea fist ,1
what they fancied, and, instead of casting the Dal
into the depthsof French society, and observing item*
and shoals, they steered boLly ahead, and eat
dashed to pieces. The Times and Chronicle talk be.
sense, and dangerous nonsense, in saying that mu
boldness would have saved them. It was not bole
sees they wanted, but prudence, foresight, end see,
mon attention to popular sentiments and desires,
There is, perhaps, no stronger contrast. name
complete opposition to the policy of Louts Pattie;
than is presented by King LEOPOLD of helve
Whilst Louis Premiere sought to mil h
throne to the ground, and himself to di
throne, King LEOPOLD has sate as loot*
as a sailor balancing on the deck of a twig
vessel. Whenever there came a change of p*
Leopold has bent in the right direction. Noumea
what the sentiment prevailing, Cieholic or pep*
Leopold lent it his royal ear. During the late *
vescence of republicanism, King Leopold is said
have addressed some of his liberal servants whittle
observation, that lee had no very deep orotetinateds
sfnirrethtonnire,mbanitntthahetir
ikng tha
t ih
ne hadthe
d e one his b
way,
becoa
most willingly withdraw. Eve ry one wee, is ea
sequence, most desirous to retain a monarch tilt
obstructed no liberal interest or propels, tel
who, in resigning, would have left the state
prey to anarchy, commerce a victim to baultruptel
and ruin, and contending parties no preteens
against each other. The middle and commercial*
of Belgium—all, in fact, that is influential in B.
gium—prefer King LEOPOLD to any republic. lk
would the same class in France have /week
Louis Pnitirre to any republic, if he woad let
have let them.
But Louis Pmitirre's whole soul and edit
were directed to Madrid and to Vienna, tad
his anxiety was about kings and tennis
when, had be been wise, he would have been revise
ing and contenting his national guards. lie gm
bhatilteldieiqsfuatnert
o
keepers of the Rue St. Denis, tied the manufactmig
bshei
tts
acourtiers,population of the Faubourg St. Marceau:. lk
tcauyn;nded6btaarBriinsstaotottefhonirtseteigegan ntoeThrathilaigen'eL sheik
Niajesty so obscured his horizon with crowds I
coot tiers in red ribands that he forgot the mob ul
the paving stones, on the very heaps of which be be
mounted the throne, and which were u midi!
thrown up to scale it again.
No—let it tof be said that Louis Penn
lities which as a man he eminently posessed,bt
pwearniethnefd
anfromminnnwansetassof
and
duenragmetn—ohe perished
n
prudence,
ha
from which, as a king, he allowed himself to
secluded, till he lost their warning and their clue.