The Press. — London, England, 1854-09-16 00:00:00

866 aid. of his simple secretary, may play into the hands of the Austrian Chancery. It is not surprising that the Continental Courts should cast contempt on a Cabinet which, from its constitution, is incapable of vigorous action. Tb. threats which frOill time to time have been sung towards then of " oppressed natiouslitiss" must move their ridicule while the Liberal party is committed to the support of Lord ANERDEL/e. Coalibinlt• Such a Government they will not trust, and cannot fear. They detect on the part of some of its members an inclination for mischief, but they despise its impotence, and are willing to ( protit by the concessions its weakness im pels it to make while withholding from it their confidence, and standing aloof from its action. MR. GLADSTONE. WE stated that during the recess we should review Mr. GLADSTONE as a Finance Minister, and discuss his claims, in that character, to public confidence. We must premise our review by a few ob servations upon the personal, or rather moral, qualifications which the people of England expect, and have a right to find, in this impor- taut public functionary. Finance is a subject heretofore little studied and little understood even by those who may be considered the best educated in this coun try. Much as we are all interested in the lewd° of raising and managing the fifty or sixty millions which are raised and disbursed every year, we shall venture to affirm that, until the session of 1853, when the criticisms of Mr. DtsuArLf anti Mr. THOMAS BARING may have drawn attention to the matter, there was no sub ject less understood by the public generally, and even by the educated classes, than, for in stance, the arrangements between the Govern ment and the Bank for the payment of the public charges, the practice and nature and - effects of the system of deficiency bills, the powers and operations and duties of the Com . missioners for the Reduction of the National Debt, as regards the extinction of debt, and as regards the investment of the proceeds of • savings-banks; and yet these are all matters which affect directly the interests of the tax . paying community. Still less are understood the mysteries involved in the " Consolidated Fund Account " and its surplus or deficiency, in u Consolidated Fund Bills," in Exchequer Supply Bills, &c. &c. We advert to these con eiderations because the public heretofore not being well informed on such subjeets, it has - been the established custom or rule to assume that Chancellors of the Exchequer, quite irrespective of politics, are men of public , morality,—that all these mysterious operations are carefully attended to by the Finance ' Minister as a part of his administrative duties, and that no tampering would be tolerated in any of these departments for party or even political purposes. This we aver was always ' taken as a matter of course by the public. t Budgets might be contested on grounds of policy, or by the interests affected ; and Chan cellors of the Exchequer have been judged by a comparison of their estimates with the • results, in the ordinary and natural course of 1. things ; but no one ever dreamt that a Chan - Geller of the Exchequer would aid his budget, 'k to prop it up, by the deliberate miss.p- or seek to prop it up, oy tue uenueresuu Lulea", plieation of funds entrusted to the Treasury, • or the Commissioners of the National Debt, fdrallbr . id idiktiArt purposes. The state- ,ri • and figures of a Chancellor of the • ~ stly been taken for granted : e osurse, possesses better • cm than others, and however : 1 • friferpnees drawn by him from ; - V 6 . 4 . ov tray be questioned, there has A 4 • .. • • 4; .: °Pourable understanding that • I.r of the Exchequer will repre- . THE PRESS. sent fairly and honestly and accurately the state of facts upon which his budget may be founded. We say, then, that the public morality of the firifujee Minister should be above suspicieu. it ims been so for many years. Sir Cut,eLEs Waon, ise was a blundering Cl4ll - of the Exeheger, but he was an hottest one. Sir Fa4ects Memo was once tempted, under circumstances of great financial diffi culty, to tamper with the savings-bank mune', and, -as we shall hereafter show, he was severely reprehended by Mr. Goinatrax, him- self a man of honour and integrity, till he learned to connive, at least by his silence, at the tricks and manoeuvres of Mr. GLADSTONE. Further, the discussions upon our budgets have usually been exempt from exhibitions of violence of temper or party acerbity—at least on the part of Chancellors of the Exchequer. Budgets generally, and properly, are the sub jects of criticism and opposition ; but so paramount in their importance are al ques tions affecting the finances of the country that Chancellors of the Exchequer have almost uniformly considered it as inconsistent with their duty and beneath their dignity, in deal jug with financial matters, to resort to the vulgar arts of the political partisan, and still less to be betrayed into acrimonious invective. We hold, therefore, that public morality, accuracy of statement, and the absence of acrimonious partisanship, are qualifications which we have a right to expect in a Chan cellor of the Exchequer, and that a deficiency in these respects amounts to personal inca- pacity. Of Mr. GLADSTONE in his private capacity we know nothing: we only know that the school of politicians to which he belongs endeavour to refine away the distinctions between the morality of the individual and the morality of the statesman. They hold that what is individually wrong may be politi cally right. Professing to be Protestants,they encourage Popery; pretending to be Conser vatives, they are Radicals. It is only one step further in Peelite morality for a Chancel lor of the Exchequer to delude the public by representations which he knows to be false — to propose a peace budget with a conscious ness of war being imminent—to make in March a financial statement for the year, including a war estimate, with the knowledge that it will not serve for half the period—to propose an augmentation of the income tax then, with the intention of doubling it in May—and to put into the speech of his Royal Mistress, when addressing the Parliament at the close of the session, words which are not justified by the facts, namely, that provision had been made for the immediate exigencies of the war without an addition to the permanent debt of the country. This is Mr. GLADSTONE'S pub lic morality. Of his want of accuracy we shall offer two illustrations which at the moment suggest themselves. For another purpose we referred not long ago to the first. It was when Mr. GLADSTONE stated, with a triumphant boldness which at the time gave the impres sion of truth, that the fall in Consols between the retirement of Lord DERBY and the first reduction in the interest of Exche quer Bills in 1853 was occasioned by the payment of the dividend, " the amount "of which it exactly described ;" and the second was on the occasion when he sought to include a saving of some thirty thousand pounds, effected by Mr. DISRAELI in the in terest of Exchequer Bills, among the items for which he (Mr. GLADSTONE) had a right to eredit. We could easily multiply these in stances : we adduce them for the purpose of showing that he is deficient in that strict and stern accuracy of statement which we hold to be an essential qualification in a Finance Minister. Nothing, we maintain, can justify a Chancellor of the Exchequer in making an inaccurate statement of a fact. No warmth in debate, no desire to gain a temporary ad vantage for his party, or over his opponent, should make him forget the position he holds. Every statement he makes as regards matters of fact has, or ought to have, its effect upon the finances of the country ; and he cannot acquire or retain the confidence which is necessary to the efficient discharge of his high duti3s if he forgets the situa tion he holds, and sinks into random or SATURDAY, loose assertions, or exhibits the feelings of a heated or acrimonious partisan. It is painful to refer to this latter deficiency in Mr. 111.Anesose. Iris want of temper, his rudeness, both in language and manner, amounting sometimes to something like fero city, we know has been a matter of regret to his warmest friends. We have deemed it necessary to make these strictures upon Mr. GIADSTONIeig cliereeter as a Finance Minister, because, in dealing with his mea sures, it is necessary to bear in mind the character and imperfections of the man. No one can dispute his talents. We render them our willing acknowledgment. We have, indeed, heard it said that the very exuberance of his abilities make him danger ous as a Chancellor of the Exchequer—that the confidence he feels in himself, and the power he possesses of extricating himself from difficulties, by mystifying where he cannot satisfy, has generated a rashness and boldness unsuited to the office he holds. However that may be, we believe the country and the moneyed interest are equally disgusted with the want of public morality, with the want of strict accuracy, and with the want of temper which have characterised Mr. GLADSTONN's official conduct. THE BISHOP OF OXFORD AND MR. BROCK. DURING the week a correspondence has been going the round of the papers between the Bishop of OXFORD and the Rev. W. BROCK. It is very characteristic on both sides. We advert to it chiefly because it illustrates, in a lively way, the animus of parties in the Church, and especially the mistakes men run into when they • forget their proper functions, and join " par ties " at all. Mr. BROCIC has heard that the Bishop has said the views of his brother (the late Arch deacon) " are the only views which can save "the Church of England front the dangers which beset her at the present crisis :" so he writes to him ; quotes some Romanist appro bation of the Archdeacon's book; desires an answer, and purposes to publish it. The ques tion seems at first an intrusive one. Mr. Bitoox is understood to be the real prosecutor of Arch deacon WILBERFORCE, wishes apparently to extend his good offices to the Archdeacon's episcopal brother, and seems to have for gotten that he is rather oddly requesting the Bishop to " criminate himself." If the Bishop had replied, " What is that to you ?" he might, in fair equity, have done so. But bishops (at least in these days) are public property ; and the answer, however equitable, would have been somewhat unepiseopal, The Bishop, like his political master, saw " three courses " open —to deny it ; to confess it ; to preach about it. He selects the last, and, as his prototype mostly did, the worst : My dear Mr. Brock, . . . I cannot forget days of happier intercourse with yon; common intinuicies; com mon friendships ; our common love and gratitude to our Bishop (they were once neighbouring rectors, both under the patronage of the Bishop of Winchester) ; our joyful union in the same holy services; and therefore . • • • I willingly make use of the opportunity afforded me by your letter for free communication with you. And free enough it is : the Bishop has " never said " that his brother's views are " the only" views that can save the Church; the Romish " testimonials" are a device to sow dissensions in the English Church (we think the Bishop is right here ; we have often seen evidences of it in Romish periodicals); be lieves Mr. BROCK is, " unintentionally of course," doing his best to help the m ; tells him that he has " implied, at least, ° that his " own Bishop, his patron , and h i s father's ' " friend, is no better than a timid time " server ;" that he " garbles quotations , " uses nicknames," " is doing all he can to " destroy the peace of the Church of Christ " amongst us ;" and intimates that, by right, " he should quit the Church of England." him.