The Press. — London, England, 1855-05-05 00:00:00

MAY 5, 1855. 6orrtspontutrt. POLICY OF THE WAR. TO THE EDITOR OF " THE PRESS." Sir,--It is not yet to my mind certain that this war will continue, but if it does one course only is open to us, unless we are prepared to disregard every con sideration of prudence and common sense. The expenditure of the last year has been over eighty mil lions; the utmost income which can be raised with out seriously disturbing trade and deranging the habits of the people is from sixty to sixty-five mil lions. Beyond this limit of taxation I believe you cannot go. It is not in England as it was when Ame rica was practically unknown, and working men bad no option except to stay at home, work or no work, high wages or low waps ; the Atlantic is bridged over, emigration is free, the number of our country men who have found homes in the New World already exceeds one-tenth of the entire remaining population; it needs only a bad harvest, a rise in the price of food, or a diminution in the amount of em ployment g.ven, and the exodus will proceed with tenfold rapidity, increasing as the advantages of colonial residence are more and more genera ly under stood. I repeat it, therefore, a large increase of taxation is impossible, or at least dangerous. With out such increase, and with an expenditure approach. ing that of 1854, a permanent annual addition of fit teen millions to the debt must ensue—nay, pro• bably of much more, for it is evident that the mill tary means hitherto employed by us are inadequate against the power of Russia. What then remains to be done? To make war feebly is worse than not to make it at all; to make war as we have been doing is beyond our financial ability, if the struggle be in tended to last beyond a year or two; peace, if now rejected, cannot be counted upon within that time ; one alternative only I can see, and that is to make war on a new and different system. We have had enough of military expeditions. It is no fair match when we invade Russia with 70,(00 men, and carry on a campaign 3,01 X) miles from home, against an enemy whose resources, enormous in themselves, are close at hand. Once out of the Crimea let there be no more land battles and sieges, but if we must fight let it be on our own element, where the allied strength is indisputably superior, and where dis asters like that of Sebastopol need not be feared. To sweep the Baltic and the Black Sea, to destroy the enemy's commerce, to keep his line-of-battle ships cooped up under the shelter of impregnable forts, is no small success, however it may fall short of expectations unreasonably raised; and this degree of success we have within reach if we choose to secure and be content with it. A complete blockade of both seas, while the French occupy Constantinople and defend the Balkan, need not cost us more than six or seven millions beyond the peace estimates; and what greater injury, saving alwa)s the loss of prestige, could the fall of Sebastopol inflict on Russia? In this way, also, the inconveniences of a divided command may be avoided. Let the French marshal or general—Canrobert or any one else— command his own army uncontrolled, with whatever English contingent we choose to send him ; and at sea let the supreme direction be in the hands of the British admiral—an assumption warranted by our superiority of naval strength, and which Napoleon has too much good sense to resent. If this division of labour be not thought equal, let England, in ad dition, undertake the transport of French troops to the East, either wholly or in part. Thus may the risk of collision between allies be avoided, a reasonable economy maintained, and war protracted for as many years as may be necessary, without im pairing our strength, wasting blood and treasure in costly campaigns, and burdening the industry of the next generation--I remain your obedient servant, Loudon, ,flay 4, 1855. A CONSERVATIVE. LORD JOHN RUSSk:LLS PROTESTANTISM. TO THE EDITOR OF "THE PRESS." Sir,—Were Lord John Russell's consistency at all equal to his presumption these is no telling what he might not do, but really be is so troubled with in firmity of purpose that his ungovernable versatility can only be compared to the shift. and changes of a weathercock. Now, what is the lat. at act iu the har lequinade of his Ministerial lite in the capacity of Protestant England's representative at the Vienna Conferences? The dignified scribe of the Durham letter, and various other choice specimens of high Protestant literature, is " moved by the spirit " to attend nigh Maas on Easter Sunday, crossing him self in the excessive fervour of his zeal, and going through with elaborate minuteness all the multita lious rournmeties and forms of Rome. Why he was shipped off to Vienna at all is a mystery, unless it were for the purpose of demonstrating the fact that the French language was Ott included in the e:emt n tary instruction adopted in the nursery of the house of Bedford, for Lord John Russell ys about tis much scans toured to French as he is to consistency. Lord John may in his private capacity, of course, turn Papist, or THE PRESS. Mormon, or anytiiug else he pleases, but it does strike me, that when sent out to a foreign Court as the representative of Protestant England, he ought to avoid offending the sincere convictions of his countrymen by getting himself " up" in all the ce remonies of Rome, that he may go through all the necessary posturing, and get himself talked of by the wondering Viennese with the same kind of admiration that they would bestow upon any of the jugglers or athletes that appear in their capital.— Your most obedient servant, A. R. SCOTCH EDUCATION BILLS. TO THE EDITOR OF " THE PRE.Si." Sir,—l have the pleasure of seeing your paper every week, and feel much satisfaction in reading your article- as to " Conservative union." The sub stance of these articles I hope you will continue to impress upon your readers and the country generally, as I have no doubt they will and are producing great benefit to our cause. My purpose in writing to you at present is, however, in regard to our " Scotch Eclueatiun Bills." You will be aware that our parish schools, as at present constituted, are in connection with our Established Church, and that Mr. Stirling has brought in a bill to extend the working of these schools, while the Lord Advocate's bill takes the power away from our Church, and places it in the hands of what he calls a oommittee, but which is, in reality, the Free Church, of which he is one of the principal supporters. Mr. Stirling's bill ought to have been brought for ward for the second reading on Wednesday last week, but was not—for what reason I cannot discover, except that it ws. 'o give an opportunity to the county gentlemen to express their opinion of it at their annual meetings, which take place this week. The Lord Advocate, although be was requested, re fused to postpone for ten days the second reading of his bill, and on Friday night it was read the second time by a majority of thirty-nine. I need not say how deeply I regret this, knowing what an effect it will have both on the Conservative cause in Scotland and on our Church. If the Lord Advocate's bill should pass into law, one of the principal bulwarks of our Church will be broken down. This is an opinion entertained not only by the supporters of Mr. Stirling's bill, but by the supporters of the Lord Advocate's likewise, whose earnest wish is to see such a thing come to pass. On the other hand, if Mr. Stirling's bill should become law, it would not only strengthen our Church, but link together a number of waiverers iu defence of it and Conserva tive principles generally. I need not enter into any argument as to the merits of the two bills, after reading the short notice of the result of the division in your last number, under the head "The Week." The thought that you there express, that it may still he detested by the "energy and vigilance of our Scotch members," is, I hope, not illusory; but my reason in writing to you now is to request that you may stir up not only the Scotch, but the English (aud Irish, if possible) members to action. lam aware that the two latter don't generally know much of Scotch matters, but when so much is at stake no effort should be lost to bring them into the field, and in the present crisis I hope they will act with energy. Might I, therefore, take the liberty to request that you will, through your paper, urge upon them (both English and Scctch) the importance of these two bills both to Church aud State, and call upon them, by their presence in Parliament aril votes, to oppose in every possible manner the Lord Advocate's, and to forward Mr. Stirling's bill. Although the former has been read a second time, yet much is to be done before it leaves the House of Commons, both in committee and et the third reading, and sincerely do I hope that, with your assistance, it may never pass that house ; hut., should it do so, let us " be thankful that we have a House of Lords." The Duke of Buccleucb will there play a prominent part in our favour. I have to apologise for troubling you with this communication, but what I feel in regard to these bills and the whole Conservative cause, and the love which I bear my Church, will, I hope, be accepted as an excuse,—l am, sir, your most obedient servant, Edinburgh, May 2, 1855. J. J. THE TEA DUTIES. TO THE EDITOR 07 "THE PRESS." Sir,—l appeal to your justice to give publicity to my denial in the moat full and emphatic manner to the assertion that I read in your paper of last week, under title of" The 'Tea Duties,"—that my firm and that of Mr. Motfatt's had, "no matter how obtained, some knowledge of the additional duty to be levied on tea." In commercial circles I am proud to believe this simple denial would be sufficient, bet in justice to the Government officials, no less than in respect for ourselves, I would beg you to allow me to explain the only reasons which induced me, and I believe equally were Moffittt's only grotulds, to anticipate our usual slearasees. 423 It was apparent that the exigencies of the revenue would not permit of any reduction of duties. I be lieved also that, with an admitted deficiency o t the revenue of last year, that the then proposed loan of sixteen millions would not be sufficient for the pro bable expenditure; and I was confirmed in this sup position by the guarded terms of the note of the Chancellor the Exchequer announcing the loan, which struck me as designed to mislead the commer• cial public, but which did not seem to me to commit the Goverr....ent to that source of supply alone. The inference I drew was that recourse would be hail to additional duties on the great articles of consumption, and I was strengthened in that view by my own con viction of policy of the Government: 1 thought it highly improbable that two large articles in whioh I am interested, viz., sugar and tea, should escape. I have suffered too severely from the vagaries of legislation to hesitate at any reasonable sacrifice to insure myself if possible from them ; and upon these grounds I made the following calculation. It I an ticipate a month's duty my only loss will be the in terest upon the amount I shall so pay in anticipation, and as we should have under any circumstances to pay duty daily, if I pay a month's consumption in advance I shallonly iu fact lose a fortnight's interest. 100,1`001ba, at Is. ad. per lb. duty, is 7,5001., the interest for which for fourteen days is 141.75. 9d. While, on the other hand, if my fears are correct (and I assumed the increase of duty would at least have been sixpence per lb.), the profit (or rather the saving of a loss) would be 100,0(X) lbs. at ad. per lb., 2,500/. I thought the "insurance," viz., under 151., moderate as against such a sum, and I hedged therefore against the probability. I think that any one holding my opinion, who had considered the subject for a moment., would have done the same; but the fact, I believe, was that the general public had more confidence in the good sense and consistency of our rulers than it is my good fortune to possess ; and, as a confirmation of that view, I may mention that even my own partners thought me over-anxious on the subject, and pre vented my paying on a much larger quantity. I will only add in justice to my friend Mr. Mott that., as he happened to call on me whilst I was con sidering the subject, I mentioned my views, and al though I have no right to say he coincided in them entirely, the figures I now quote convinced him that the insurance was worth 'liaising, and without further hesitation he left my office with the expressed deter mination of adopting the same course as the one I had resolved on. That he paid on a larger amount than ourselves arose, I believe, from the fact that his trade in the article is larger than our own.—l am„ sir, your most obedient servant, J. J. TRANZIS. 19, Swithin's-lane, London, 30th April, 1855. [lt appears that we underrated the extent of the clearance by Messrs. Travers. It was a month's consumption, not a fortnight's, as we assumed. Itis not apparent now this firm could have suffered more than others, from what is termed the "vagaries of legislation," if it had pursued the ordinary course of its trade. That Mr. Travers understood from the " guarded terms of the Chancellor of the Exchequer's note " more than met the eye of the general public, is no doubt an evidence of that gentleman's acute ness, but indicates at the saute time that the Finance Minister was not quite so cautious in con cealing his intentions as he might have been. The fact admitted in this letter that two firms in the trade were able to anticipate the change, and thus obtain a great advantage over their brethren, is not creditable to the prudence of the Chancellor of the Exchequer's arrangements.) Tux next anniversary dinner of the Royal Literary Fund will be held on May 22 ; the Bishop of Oxford in the chair. IN THE CASE or Mn. BARRER, the solicitor, Sir Fitzroy Ke1..,, on the second day of the present term, moved, in the Queen's Bench, fur Mr. Bather's re admieion to practise as an attorney of the court. Their lordships took time to consider, and on Tues day last Lord Campbell said " the court had looked over the adidavits, and they thought there ought to be 4 rule to show cause." Tua MaortrreArxit OF TUNBRIDGE have committed a man, named William Froyue, on a charge of placing an obstruction on the South-Eastern Rail way, with a view of stopping the royal train on its return to town on Saturday the 21st, with Prince Albert and the Duke of Cambridge. The prisoner was seen to place on that line, about two hundred yards from the bridge, near the station, several pieces of timber and bricks on the np rails. On being taken into custody be admitted he had done it to stop the royal train, but be did not want to do them any harm, as be was closely related to royalty him self. He is considered insane. LUIGI BUkAIIELLI, the Italian, underwent the ex treme penalty of the law in front of Neirgata on Monday morning.