The Press. — London, England, 1854-02-11 00:00:00

122 JAMES GRAHAM. and Mr. GLADSTONE. In 1854, the author of the Ecclesiastical Titles Bill, sitting between the same Mr. GLADSTONE and Sir JAMES GRAHAM, and serving under the same Lord ABERDEEN, under the pretence of effecting the admission of Jews into Parliament by a side wind, proposee, among other oaths, to annul that very one which was devised and offered by Sir ROBERT PEEL as a chief " security " for the Pro testant Church and liberties of this country. Is there less evidence now of a Papal conspi racy against our Protestant religion and liber ties than in 1851 ? On the contrary, there is scarcely a country in Europe or America which cannot afford subsequent instances of Roman aggression. And are conspiracies of Rome against Protestant faith and freedom things that flourish and fade in the course of a few years ? If Lord JOHN Russell. was justified in making his memorable declaration, not only to hie country, but to the world, in 1851, he is bound, so long as he remains a public man, to devote all his energies to resist that Ultramontane contrivance which he denounced after so much meditation and with so much energy. But instead of this, with the prime patrons of English cardinals for his colleagues, he criti cises the oath which asserts our fidelity t 3 our Protestant dynasty and our Protestant Church, in the spirit of Mr. GLADSTONE, and almost in his language, as if the importance of that oath were to he gauged by verbal criticism ! And as if its abrogation would not be a triumph in every consistory of Christendom, from St. Peter's at Rome to St. George's-in-the- Fields. In 1851 the Coalition, then justifiably sug gested by the Court, could not be effected, be cause of a repugnance on the part of the Pusey ites to Lord J. RUSSELL'S Protestant principles. In 1854, sitting between these same Puseyites, this same Lord JOHN Russell. proposes to omit all Protestant principles from our par liamentary oaths ! But what are foreign war, or domestic revolution, or even Protestant principles, compared with the advantage of being governed by " ALL THE TALENTS"? MAJOR BERESFORD. WE do not insult Major BERESFORD with any congratulations on the result of his mock trial, because it would be a calumny against him to suppose that the proceedings so long threat ened could lead to any other issue. But, in the name of public justice, we do, as journal ists, enter our protest against so wanton an abuse of the forms of law to oppress an inno cent person as that which was on Thursday witnessed in the Court of Queen's Bench. Let the facts be borne in mind. Major BERESFORD, examined by a committee of the House of Commons, in which his political opponents predominated—examined under all the disadvantages of a bitter exparte attack delivered against him in Parliament, and there left unreplied t p—at a time, moreover, when the whole Liberal press of England had for months past been accusing him, on the barest grounds of suspicion, of gross political profli gacy—was by that, certainly not favourable, tribunal acquitted of the charge of bribery, and censured only for an act of obvious but pardonable imprudence. We cast no blame on the committee who found that verdict. A certain amount of indiscretion in allowing his name to be made use of by persons of whose character lie knew nothing was frankly acknow ledged by the defendant. But on the real question at issue—on the charge of corruption . knowingly practised by himself—Major BEREs- FORD quitted office wholly exonerated. To attempt to reverse this decision in a law court was an act only pardonable in the prosecutors on the assumption that they had in their pos session i:Tefragable proofs not before accessible. • But party ranclur is not scrupulous. They proceeded without proofs—they proceeded, we verily believe, under a full consciousness that th eir ea se, if brought. forward, must break down —but that mattered little. An innocent and honourable man, but one whose political zeal rendered him obnoxious to the Liberal party, was to be held up to public reprobation, aid THE PRESS. the Ministry with which he was connected was thus to be indirectly attacked. For this object the proceedings adopted seemed well suited. Month after month was spent by the victim in the anxiety which any man, however guilt less, must feel with a criminal charge hanging over his head. His health suffered—his funds were largely drawn upon by the necessary preparations for defence—by the world in general he was regarded as one already con victed, so widely had the calumnies of his op ponents been diffused. The day of trial comes —the defendant leaves a sick-bed to appear in court—that court is crowded with spectators, who expect to see him crushed—when, without one word of apology or expression of regret, the counsel for the prosecution rises, informs the judge that he has no case, and in effect prays that the proceedings may he stopped ! Space fails us to comment on what we hold to be one of the most malignant and cowardly political persecutions of which a record exists. OUR CORN SUPPLIES. IT is of permanent importance in connection with our present commercial policy to ascertain whether or not the unrestricted importation of foreign corn has had the effect of diminish ing home production. Such is the defective state of our agricultural statistics that it has been truly remarked that we can estimate with greater accuracy in any year the amount of the indigo crop in Bengal, or of the cotton crop in Carolina, than the quantity of grain grown in the United Kingdom. Yet we do possess a certain description of evidence upon the subject, which, taken in the aggregate, affords grounds for concluding that, however strenuously some of our contemporaries assert the contrary, the total abolition of the corn laws has been followed by a material diminu tion of home production. That this has been the result in Ireland is well ascertained. According to the Govern ment tables, which are prepared with the ut most care, wheat cultivation in that country fell off in the short space of three years after the repeal of the corn laws to the extent of fully one half. The imports of Irish wheat and wheat flour into Great Britain diminished in still greater proportions, as the following figures show : Wheat and Wheat Flour Imported from Ireland into Great Britain. In 1849. 18.50. 18.51. Wheat 101,864 qrs. 68,133 qrs. 41,761 qrs. Wheat flour 460,534 cwts. 352,077 ewts. 172,247 cwts. There is good reason to believe that the production of wheat has also declined in Eng land, though not to the same serious extent as in the sister kingdom. The evidence which we possess upon this point is not, indeed, posi tive and direct. We have no reliable means of ascertaining the quantity of wheat grown in England and Wales, but we can learn from each week's Gazette the precise quantity sold in the market towns. By some of our eon temporaries these weekly returns have been discarded as utterly unworthy of attention— in other words, we have been assured that the quantity of an article sold bears no proportion whatever to the quantity produced. The re turns in question may not, indeed, supply us with anything like an exact account of all the grain grown, but they supply us with a valu able test by means of which the comparative amount of our home production in any par ticular year may be fairly estimated. If any sceptical disciple of Mr. CHARLES VILLIERS doubts the truth of this proposition, we must ask him to examine these returns during a series of years. We can confidently assure him that they represent with remarkable accuracy the comparative abundance or scarcity of each particular season. When the harvest has been plentiful he will find invariably that the subsequent sales have been proportion ately large; when it has been small he will find invariably the reverse. Comparing the returns during the last three years of protection with those of the last three years of free trade, we find the following re sults : SATURDAY, Wheat Returned as Sold in the Market Towns of England • and Wales. In 1844-5,4013,307 qrs. In 1851-4,487,011 qrs. 1845-13,660,240 „ 1.514-4,8454,417 „ 1848-5,938,962 „ 1858-4,500,909 „ For a further proof that these returns sub stantially indicate the comparative abundance or scarcity of our home production, we may refer to the amount of sales which have taken place since last harvest. We know to our cost that it was deficient, and we find accordingly that the quantity of wheat sold during the three months ending the 31st of December last was only 1,106,027 quarters, in comparison with 1,445,906 quarters sold during the three corresponding months of the previous year. Coming still nearer to the present time, we find that during the whole month of January, 1854, there were sold only 260,477 quarters. Should the sales continue in the same propor tion throughout the year, the returns for 1854 will thus exhibit a falling off of more than one half, as compared with those of 1845. We are not surprised, therefore, that, with these significant facts before them, the mer cantile community should seek for additional information on the subject of home-grown corn. They know that the price of that article regulates that of most other commodities, and hence it is of essential importance to ascer tain as nearly as possible the extent of our home supplies. Before the abolition of the corn laws this was comparatively a matter of little moment. Our foreign importations, ex cept in years of great scarcity, were insignifi cant ; but they have since increased almost beyond the bounds of credibility, and we may add that the returns for 1853 far exceed those of any former year. Nay, more, we recently read in the circular of an extensive firm en gaged in the corn trade that in the present year of 1854 we shall require to import the enormous quantity of eight millions of quar ters of foreign wheat. Can we safely reckon on these supplies in the present attitude of Europe ? And, if so, are we sure that we shall be able to pay for them without derange ments to our monetary system ? These are grave questions, and of far greater interest at the present time to our merchants and bankers than to our agriculturists. The great fact that we have now bec me dependent for a large portion of our daily bread upon foreign coun tries is apparent. How this dependence will affect us in time of war we shall, in all likeli hood, have a speedy opportunity of learning. We refrain, therefore, from dwelling on the past, and we leave the field of prophecy to Mr. COBDEN ; but., in the meantime, we cannot but approve of the important movement which has lately been made in the City on the subject of improving our means of information regarding our home supplies of food. MURDER MADE EASY—BURIAL CLUBS. AFTER the exposures of burial clubs, in our two preceding articles, it remains only to indicate two points—first, the calculable magnitude of the evil ; and, next, the most fitting legal remedy to apply. The former of these questions can only be decided approximately, and by infqlence of the un known total from facts which come under our observation. We have already referred to the case of one man who put his children's names into nineteen separate clubs ; thus obtaining nineteen times the amount which the general opinion of the neighbourhood pronounced sufficient for purposes of decent interment. Mr. CLAY here again comes forward and fur nishes us with a fact which may serve by wa y of sample. In a town of 60,000 inhabitants, in 1846, there existed and flourished eleven clubs of this kind, the aggregate of members attending which was 52,000, not including sick clubs, which would probably bring up the number by 2,000 more. Now, let it be remembered that not all the population is eligible to a burial society under the rules universally laid down. Persons in weak health are excluded ; so are infants under two months old; the rich have no inducement to join; none become members to whom Si. or 10/. payable on the death of an infant is not a valuable consideration. Deducting the very 2