The Press. — London, England, 1858-05-15 00:00:00

Corrtsgontturt. CONSERVATIVE REACTION. TO THE EDITOR OF "THE PRESS." Sir,—The political history of the past thirty years is in some respects encouraging, especially to those who are known as " the Conservative party." By the way, I must own to an affectionate predilection for the phrase " the Tory party :" it is usually ap plied by way of opprobrium ; I accept it as an honour. An impartial investigation of the history of England, from the Revolution of 1688 downwards, will demon strate that the Tory policy has been on the whole creditable—that the Tory party is historically repre sented by names of the highest standard for patriotism and capacity—that under its supremacy the interests of the Crown and the people have been most vigilantly protected. I repeat, I like the word " Tory," but accept of " Conservative," as expressing a modifica tion understood in the political life of the country. At the passing of the Reform Act, it was the current opinion of all parties that a Conservative Government was, in future, an impossibility. The judgment of the late Sir Robert Peel on the merits of the bill was, on its third reading, expressed in most decided terms : After the long lapse of time (said the right hon. baronet) that it has been in progress through the house—after giving to it all the consideration its importance requires— alter the various alterations made in it—l should have felt happy if it were in my power now to say that I saw in it less that was objectionable than when it was first pro paved. I must, however, declare that the reverse is the case. . . . The more I consider that measure—the more I reflect on the consequences to which it will lead • (consequences embracing everything valuable to the con. 'Mutton and frame of society )--the more I feel anxiety and apprehension—the more my objections are confirmed and strengthened. In whatever view I regard it—whether with reference to its origin, to the period at which it was brought forward, to the example on which it is founded, to the means by which it is attempted to be carried, or to the consequences which may be expected from its adoption am filled with astonishment, mortification, and dila msy."—Speech on Third Reading of the Reform Bill, 1832. Making due allowance for rhetorical effect, and for the fact that thought travels in direct lines, without regard to the many unknown circumstanzes that intervene to direct and control important organic changes in the constitution of a country, it must be owned that the fears of Sir Robert Peel were not without foundation. Subsequent events corresponded, in some respects but too faithfully, with the " asto nishment, mortification, and dismay" of the Con. servative leader. In 1835, the late Mr. O'Connell made a tour throughout the principal towns of Scotland and the north of England, ex pressly to denounce the House of Lords. "We must put down the House of Lords," was then the motto of the Agitator. Mr. Roebuck, in September, 1835, actually gave notice in the House of Commons of his intention 'to introduce a bill in the following session, to the effect that any bill which in the same session was twice approved by the Commons, having been rejected Ivy the Lords, should, on receiving the Royal signs. true, become law. Th e l a t e M r . Hums gave notice of a motion to inquire into the number and privileges of the House of Lords ; and Mr. Rippon, M.P. for Gateshead, modestly intimated his intention of bringing into the Commons a bill for the removal of the bishops and archbishops from the Upper House! These facts intimate the feeling of the ultra• Radical members of the House of Commons in 1 535. A society was established in London, having -offices in Tavistock-street, Covent-garden, for the dif fusion of what was called " Moral and Political knowledge among the People." Among the society's pamphlets, issued under the editorial clue of Mr. Roebuck, were the following, the mere titles of which sufficiently indicate their contents :—" Of what use is the House of Lords ?" " The evils of a House of Lords." The acceptance of the Reform Act, as a settlement of the question of the suffrage, by Sir Robert Peel, ou behalf of the Conservative party—his kid' Administration in 1834—his appeal to the Con servative electors to o register," and their results, woat be f refik in the memories of moat ob- THE PRESS, MAY 15, 1858. serving men. For the second time within a few years, Lord Derby and his colleagues are the Queen's Ministers ; and notwithstanding the bitter enmity daily manifested by the leading Liberal journals, the Conservative party continue in office ; and, let its tenure close when it may, a return to power is, at no very distant day, a moral certainty. The country accepts of the rule of the Conservative party without alarm, and for solid reasons ; improve ment in the national institutions at home, courtesy and firmness abroad, are vastly preferable to insolent gasconading by Lord Palmerston to weak neighbours, and mendicant subserviency to the strong, united to promises of Reform, without the ability and power to realize them. The political atmosphere is calm in 1858, in comparison with any intermediate period since the agitation for " the Bill, the whole Bill, and nothing but the Bill." The popular fallacy that a Conservative Government is necessarily the opponent of progress, and of the elevation of working men, it is in the power of a Conservative, Government to neutralize by the introduction in due time of judicious measures into Parliament. In the absence of extrinsic support, in the form of some popular and usually delusive cry, the " Liberals " are proverbially powerless. This kind of support they cannot now readily acquire. It has been the practice of the Conservatives to trust to their character and position for support, without regard to popular opinion. Under these circum stances, the fact of their success is the more significant. No good reason can be given why a Conservative Government should not be eminently popular among all classes. It is no longer judicious to despise popular support; in this age, the confidence of the people is an element of real power, which, honestly obtained and applied, is alike creditable and useful to those who give and those who receive. Judging from the past, and the actual facts of the present, the Conservatives have no reason to make light of their resources, or to doubt of success in the future government of this country. It has been well said by Mr. Disraeli, that the salvation of the institutions of England depends upon the ascendancy of Tory principles. That as cendancy can only be permanently acquired and main. tained by untiring energy, and can only be nationally advantageous by manifesting a really practical in terest in the welfare of the whole people. Mr. Disraeli, in his speech at Newport Pagnell last year, declared distinctly that "Tory principles alone could save the nation."—l am, sir, your obedient servant, Ella TRADE. May 10th, 1858. THE SINKING FUND. TO THE EDITOR OE " THE PRESS." Sir,—There are two objections to Sinking F ands —the one arithmetical, the other moral. The first amounts to this, that a sinking fund is merely an unnecessary complication, for it comes exactly to the same thing—simply to pay money when you have it in extinction, pro tanto, of debt, or to set it aside and allow it to accumulate, and then apply ir, or to pay by stated instalments. Any man may test this by trying to liquidate his overdrawn account on bank A by depositing his yearly surpluses in bank B. Whenever the account in bank B is equal to the debt in bank A, a simple transfer will make him a free man; but the same thing would have happened bad be paid in his annual savings to bank A, to be ap plied directly to the balance against him. Disguise it how we may, there is no magic in compound in terest, no arithmetical hocus.pocus whereby debt can be sooner or easier reduced than by paying ready cash when we have it, in the same simple direct way as decent housekeepers pay their house bills. The moral objections to the ordinary shape of sinking funds are more serious ; for just as you or I, on a pinch, would be tempted to apply the money in bank B to some other purpose than extinguishing the debt due to bank A, so would the State, on a pinch, appropriate or borrow the sinking fund. Now, I do not pretend to suggest any scheme which can obviate the arithmetical objection—a sink. ing fund of any kind can never be better than a pretty puzzle allowing of a good deal of ingenious calculation to no purpose—but I think I see my way to a form of the sinking fund which gets rid of the moral objection. You may ask, why suggest any scheme which is arithmetically of no value ? I answer, in deference to popular superstition ; for there is throughout the world a strong belief in sinking funds, a profound conviction of the magical virtue of compound interest. That superstition may take a hurtful instead of a harmless shape, and my object s to suggest the least objectionable form of a popular, and, I think, irradicable error. An annuity of three and a half per cent. for sixty six years is precisely equivalent to an annuity of three per cent. for ever. The addition of a half per cent. would therefore suffioe to convert Console into sixty-six years annuities. Now, since the National Debt amounts to eight hundred millions, it would only require an addition to the national expenditure of tour millions to secure the extinction of the whole National Debt by the year 1923—that is to say, an income tax of fourpence submitted to for sixty-six years would hand over England to our children free of debt. Of course, this principle admits of an in finite variety of applications. Instead of trying to pay the whole debt, we may be content with providing for the extinction of one-half, in which ease two mil lions per annum wouldsutlice; or if fourpence income tax is not too much for our patriotism, and we never theless wish to secure some benefit from the opera tion to ourselves, we might content ourselves with converting a portion of the debt into annuities of thirty or twenty-five years, and at the end of either of these periods we might sweeten our untaxed tea with untaxed sugar, and the consciousness of having done some good to posterity. This scheme seems to me to be free from the moral objection I have alluded to, and which has hitherto made all sinking funds sinking funds not in name but in reality. Under my scheme there is no aocumulating surplus to tempt a needy Chan cellor of the Exchequer ; and, supposing the conver sion once effected, it would be exceedingly difficult to revert to the old Three per Cents., even supposing the patriotism of the people not to be worth four millions per annum ; and there would be in this case what there is not in any other scheme of a sinking fund, a specific obligation to the national creditor to pay him a certain sum annually, which would practically go towards the extinction of the capital of the debt. I have almost written myself into the belief that the scheme I have thus propounded is not simply harmless, but positively beneficial. I will, therefore, notice one objection which I anticipate will be made to it—namely, that the landholders would not. accept the new securities. I believe they would not if the one were precisely of the same value as the other ; but give a shade difference in favour of conversion— make it the interest of the fundholders to take the annuities, by a fraction however small, and of course they would take them. I, therefore, through the medium of your paper, beg to offer this scheme for paying off the National Debt to the consideration of the first Chancellor of the Exchequer who may be embarrassed with a surplus.--I am, &c , J. A. G. THE INDEPENDENT LIBERALS held a second meet ing on Wednesday in the smoking•room of the House of Commons. Between fifty and sixty attended. A general desire was expressed for thorough union among the Liberal party, and a motion was made by Mr. James Clay in favour of the withdrawal of Mr. Cardweli's resolution after the resignation of the President of the Board of Control. This motion gave rise to much discussion, and was strongly opposed by several members present, though a strong feeling was evident against doing anything that might conduce to the return of Lord Palmerston to power. General views were expressed in favour of Lord Derby's Government, but no final decision was come to, and the meeting was adjourned till yesterday, before the introduction of Mr. Cardwell's motion. THE ANNUAL DINNER or THE NATIONAL CLUB took place on Wednesday at the Clubhouse, 1, Whitehall-gardens, the Earl of Roden, chairman, N. Kendall, Esq., M.P., vie&ohairman. Among those present were the Earl of Bandon, Lord Berner% the Bishop of Cashel, the Hon. Sidney R. Curzon, Major the Hon. H. L. Powys, R. Spooner, Esq., M.P., C. N. Newdegate, Esq., M.P., G. Macartney, Esq., M.P., the Right Hon. John Wynne, Sir B. Bridges, Bart., M.P., G. A. Hamilton, Esq., M.P., J. B. Hordell, Esq., M.P., James Macgregor, Esq., A. G. Stapleton, Esq., the Rev. C. Lane, the Rev. Mr. Bull, the Rev. Mr. Caulfield, the Rev. Mr. Straton, the Rev. S. Min ton, the Rev. W. Adams, the Rev. T. Blackburn; A. Spottiswoode, W. H. J. Mackworth Dalben, and J. Bateman, Esqs.; Major Pawney, J. Braithwaite, J. Dagmore, W. H. Peters, W. (1. Habershon, and J. Hayward, Esqa., Jo. The report which was read before dinner gave an encouraging statement of the progress the club had made denting the past year of its finance and prospects. The toasts given and the speeches made were of the usual loyal character, and expressed the full determination of the members to persevere in the principles which the club was founded to uphold, namely, Protestant Christianity as the basis of government, and the best sidegnard of the liberties and of tie moist lapti■ra- at the people.