The Press. — London, England, 1857-01-31 00:00:00

lIM if/' ~ ~~~ L~~ tht.6l No. 190.—VoL.V. El) j e ,Vress. determine to maintain extravagant establish ments, we must find money to support them. We have shown in previous articles, that from 18-10 to 1853 our total expenditure averaged little more than 50,000,0001. per annum. From 1835, the cost of our military and naval ser vices has been gradually augmenting. In 1853 they were nearly two millions more than they were in 1851, and about five millions more than they were in 1835. Shall we return to about the highest peace expenditure pre vious to the late war, or shall we decide on a considerable increase ? If an increase be de cided on, it must be permanent, or it must be utterly wasteful. It would be absolutely ridi culous, as well as extravagant, to decide on higher estimates for the next year or two than we are prepared to permanently maintain. Such thoughtless, unprincipled, and spend thrift waste would naturally result in irqu• dicious and forced retrenchment. . Again : behind this question of armed estab lishments is the question of our Foreign Policy. If that policy is to be blustering and aggres sive, the country, to be safe, must always hold itself in readiness for actual war. The nation, which in a manner throws out a challenge to all corners, can never afford to rely on ordinary peace establishments. It must keep its army and navy on a higher footing than would otherwise be necessary to justify its boastful attitude. A country situated as England is, with outlying possessions contiguous to those both of mighty empires and of semi-civilised States, need never vainly seek for cause of quarrel with its neighbours. One line of policy will lead, with exceptional instances, to general peace. Another line of policy will lead, with exceptional instances, to general war. It is for the Legislature and the country to decide which line is to be preferred—whether, on the whole. a policy of peace or a policy of war shall be chosen. If the former, peace estab lishments and reduced taxation naturally follow. If the latter, war establishments and augmented taxation In previous periods of our national life the opportunity of choice has not been afforded us. We have the privilege now. We may, for the extension of our trade, our race, and our empire, trust to peaceful influences, and to that energy of our people which in times of peace will find means of extension, or we may endeavour to acquire new power and territory by force of arms. If the latter resolve be taken, we shall provoke that collision of em pires which some thoughtful minds have ima gined will close the modern world in frightful convulsion. These three principles of Finance, of Estab lishments, and of Foreign Policy, all inti mately associated with each other, are great questions for discussion in the coming session, however narrowly and practically they may be viewed. Other political principles will chal lenge discussion also. Parliamentary Reform has been made a distinct and definite part of Liberal policy. It was adopted as a leading bond of cohesion by the Coalition Cabinet. We do not imagine that the question will be decided one way or the other in the coming session ; but we do think it likely that the question will be put in such a shape as to call for some decided expression of national opinion at the next general election. An appeal to the country may take place this year; it is unlikely to be protracted beyond the year next ensuing. Will the present Parliament decide to abide by LONDON, SATURDAY, JANUARY 31, 1857. STAMPED . II SIXPENCE. NSTAMPiD . .FI VEPENCE. the general principles of the settlement of 1831, or will it declare in favour of the whole subject of Parliamentary representation being reopened ? One other principle must come prominently beforejthe Legislature. It is whether corporate, or institutional, property shall rest on the same firm basis as other kinds of property, or whether it shall in effect be declared to be at the mercy of the State, to be dealt with as cir cumstances may render expedient. We are not in doubt of the sentiments of the Govern ment upon this subject. We know that Mr. LowE, their mouthpiece, has declared that the very principle of corporate property is a principle of public robbery. It is probable that on this point the Legislature may be required to pronounce a• decided Yes or No in the ensuing session. M. de TOCQUEVILLE, in his lucid exposition of the causes which led to the downfall of the French monarchy, has shown how largely the weakness or perfidy of the Sovereign in consenting to the confiscation of corporate property, contributed to the con vulsion which shook to pieces the whole fabric of French society. That logic must needs he of a suspicious kind [which [attempts to estaL lish a distinction between the property of one indivithial and the property of several indi viduals, as regards right to the property itself. The jurisdiction of the State is supreme over both kinds of property within certain limits, but that jurisdiction cannot, without extreme confusion and insecurity, be held to extend to the confiscation of property which the com mon law of the land would respect. On these questions we can have no doubt what the opinion of the Conservative body both in Parliament and the country must be. We believe it will hold that the financial set tlement of 1853 should be fairly carried out; that a return to peace should bring with it a return to pence establishments ; that our foreign Policy should be directed rather to the maintenance of friendly relations with other Powers, whether they be great or small, than to provoke quarrels with them that either we may crush rivalry or oppress weakness. We believe that Conservative opinion must be adverse to reopening the question of our Parliamentary representation with a view to great and organic changes; and that what• ever improvements may be required in the ma nagement of corporate property, the principle of the right to such property shall be scru pulously respected. THE POLICY OF LORD JOHN RUSSELL. Ix all political circles the probable " sayings and doings " of one eminent statesman in the coming session form a constant subject of speculation. The interrogatory of "What will " Lord John do?" is asked in every variety of tone. No one can be surprised at the inten tions of Lord JOHN RUSSELL being so fre quently canvassed. He is a remarkable man, a formidable and for mar representati' the first tim tary Whi g; nected with Since the their duke) had a repre e politician, even if he lone, my years he hae. b *Ng ive of the house_if ". 410! le in the historraf ". • !aft ;s the Russell h the official rum 5,.. • days when the " vl— * !dorn, Woburn s• a :sentative in Do l f'. 4, Jai 14 LONDON, SATURDAY, JANUARY :31, 1t457. POLITICAL prophecy is never more at fault than when it attempts to raise the veil from the future of Parliamentary proceedings. In so large and so mixed an assembly as the House of Commons, with its members agitated by every diversity of sentiment and swayed by every variety of interest, it is impossible on the eve of a session to pregeribe with any cer tainty the subjects that will obtain predomi nance, and, still less, to foretel the resolutions that may be taken. It is a common observation of experienced politicians, that those sessions have been the most stormy which seemed likely to pass off with most quietude. The freedom of our public life, the ardour of our convictions, and the courage and ambition of our public men, forbid any long period of stag nation, or even of calm, in our Parliamentary annals. But without pretending to predict what will occur during the coming session, we may so far indulge in speculation as to note some principles which, apart from particular questions, must, we think, be fully discussed, and rally to one side or the other the strength of the two great parties which divide the Legislature. The financial question is one not admitting, of delay. The Budget of the CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER, with the decision taken on it, will go far to decide the principles on which the taxation of the country is hereafter to rest. There will be no pretence for presenting to Parliament a temporary or exceptional scheme of finance ; there is nothing in the circum stances of the country to justify a materially different scale of expenditure, or a materially different manner of raising revenue from what it will be wise to adopt in future. The finan cial scheme to be decided on this year must be regarded as the basis of schemes to be adopted in future As this subject is discussed in our other columns, we will only say here, that our own conviction is clear that the settlement of 1E433 should be observed. That settlement was of the nature of a compromise. It imposed a direct tax of two millions yearly on real pro perty, the condition being that the Property and Income Tax should expire in 1 GO. Those who now advocate a continuance of that tax with a differential rate adverse to property, would make the Legislature break faith with the country. If the settlement of 1~ ? •i3 is now departed from, the Income Tax will almost cer tainly be perpetuated. The only chance of extinguishing it, is by insisting that the Act of 11.03 shall be truly observed. Closely connected with the financial pies tion, and, indeed, antecedent to it, is the question of our military and naval establish ments. The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER, ill reply to a deputation on the 23rd inst., stated truly, that the amount of taxation must be determined by the amount required •for the estimates. We have not to cut our coat ac cording to our cloth, but we have to cut our cloth according to our coat. Whatever size we determine our coat to be, we must in one way or other find cloth to make it. 11 we LATEST EDITION. 11141116