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

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.

424