The Press.
London, England, 1853-06-04 00:00:00

THE PRESS.

of the EXCHEQUER has played his cards so
well, that he has contrived to increase the
number of these stocks by no less than three
new descriptions, of which his successors
cannot get rid for forty years ! People are
very anxious to discover who was the adviser
of Mr. GLADSTONE. IL is known that the re-
duction of the rate of interest on Exchequer
bills was opposed by every one—the Governor
of the Bank. the Commissioners for the Re-
duction of the National Debt, and by all the
authorities in the Treasury ; but that insane
step was accounted for by the monomania of
Mr. 0 LADSTONE, which is always to. out-herod
Mr. DISRAELI in everything. His predecessor
had made a cautious and well-considered re-
duction of the interest on Exchequer bills,
when they were floating at a very high pre-
mium. Mr. GIADSTONE resolved to make a
further reduction, when that premium was
much diminished. Mr. GLADSTONE'S scheme
for paying off the national debt, and which
will end by a new loan, is, however, we are in
formed, all his own.

THE IRISH DIFFICULTY.
To say that Mr. MOORE'S motion of Tuesday
last was ill-timed is only to affirm that the
zeal of that politician outran his prudence.
Misled by precedent, and either unwatchful of
public opinion, or willing to defy it, he invited
the House to proceed to a superfluous inquiry
for an impossible object. We say a super-
fluous inquiry, for the statistics of the Irish
Church may be in the hands of any one who
will take the trouble to disinter them from the
blue-books where they lie buried. We say an
impossible object, for no man in his senses
can assert that the endowment of the Roman
Catholic clergy—confessedly the end and
design of Mr. Mooax's proposal—is likely to
be assented to by that electoral body which
sends to Parliament one-third of its represen-
tatives pledged against Maynooth, and which,
in 1651, the Durham letter, and the manifesto
of Cardinal WISEMAN, combined to stir almost
into madness. And if Mr. Moonr did not
mean this, what did he mean ? " The disen-
" dowment of the Protestant Church," some
may answer. Possibly ; but Lord Jolts
RUSSELL was quite right in saying that the
Irish Church could nut be disendowed without
establishing a precedent which must be fol-
lowed in England. For such an ecclesiastical
resolution none, of course, could vote except
the supporters of the pure " voluntary prin-
" ciple," who, iu the present House of Com-
mons, scarcely number a hundred, and do not
exist at all among the Lords. The motion,
therefore, was simply an abstract one ; and
nothing except sonic lurking doubts as to the
course which Government would take could
have brought down three hundred and fifty
members to vote upon it. In point of time,
moreover, Mr. MOORE'S attack was singularly
ill-judged. We do not put the Celtic exodus
too high when we rate the number of Irish
Catholics who, within five years, have crossed
the Atlantic, at nearly three millions. The
movement still continues, and with rapidity
little, if at all, diminished. It is not likely
that it should cease ; for in emigration the law
of science holds good—the greater the bulk or
the attracting mass, the greater, proportionally.
is the attractive power. Including earlier
colonists, not less than four millions of Irish
men, settled in America, now call upon their
countrymen to follow. One helps over
another : families separate at Liverpool or
Cork to reunite in New York; priests are fain
to follow their flocks. And in Southern Ire-
land. once swarming with paupers, and split
up into three and two acre holdings, travellers
now see reproduced in miniature the tenant-
less prairies of Illinois or Ohio. English
capital, English farmers—even English la-
bourers—begin to replace those who are gone.
In a few years it seems not only probable, but
certain, that the Protestant population will
outnumber the Catholic ; and this without
taking into account the conversions of which
we hear so much, but concerning which the
statistics as yet attainable do not enable us to
speak with assurance. But, when this change

SATURDAY,

now iri progress shall be complete, what be-
comes of the alleged grievance—what of the
contrasts between the " Church of the many "
and the " Church of the few " ? Parliament,
whose constituent units, for the most part, act
more wisely than they talk, felt this ; and the
result was—a thin House, little excitement, an
instinctive conviction on all sides that the

display was unreal, and the performers not in
earnest, and, finally, a majority of nearly three
to one. Thus the question is suspended—we
will not say for ever, but at least until Ireland
shall have passed from a transitional to a
normal state. _ _ .

..
Lord JOHN RUSSELL'S attitude in this debate
was not unworthy of notice. For the second
time within one week, he, the Whig leader,
came forward with Conservative professions,
while the ex-Conservative portion of the Cabi-
net sat in very significant silence, unpledged
and waiting their opportunity. And on both
these occasions Lord JOHN'S newly-adopted
opinions were in direct contradiction of those
announced by him at an earlier period to his
career. In 1837 he voted for the abolition of
church rates—in —53 for their continuance.
The author of the appropriation clause of —35
is now (except Sir R. INGLIS) almost the only
member of any note or mark who voluntarily
comes forward in defence of Irish ecclesiasti-
cal establishments. All honour to the states-
man who frankly avows an honest change of
opinion, perhaps at the cost of some popular
favour, certainly not as the price of popular
support. But more honour to the foresight
which renders change unnecessary, and which
predicts, even further than it guides, the cur-
rent of public opinion. Nothing in —34 33
could have saved the Irish Church except the
resolute stand made by Lord DERBY and his
followers. Lord JoHN RUSSELL, a determined
but baffled opponent, desisted from his attack
with some loss of credit, and much loss of that
prestige which attends success. Eighteen
years pass over—new parties arise—new com-
binations are formed—new topics of contro-
versy supersede the old—and at the end of that
interval Lord JOHN volunteers a confession of
error, acknowledges that the greatest political
act of his life was a dangerous mistake, and
accepts the policy of that very rival whom he
has recently aided in ejecting from office.
But Lord JOHN is not sole Minister. He is
not even First Minister. Some persons believe
that there exists within the Cabinet an inner
council, from which he is ex luded. Are his
sentiments the sentiments of the Government?
That issue will soon be tried. That the writer
of the Durham letter could lie down with the
teachers of " religious equality"—iii the Irish
sense—was from the first improbable. Now
one or the other must go. Report says that
Messrs. KEOGH, SADLEIR, and MONSELL have
already vacated their offices. Throughout.
Catholic Ireland their secession will be deeply
felt. Will so effort be made to retain them ?
Will Lord Joures declaration be uneondition-
ally adhered to ? We await the result in doubt,
and not without anxiety. But, be the de, sion
what it may, a fresh proof will be given of that
political axiom which we have repeatedly laid
down—that the durability of a Coalition Minis-
try is in an inverse ratio to the honesty of the
individuals who compose it.

THE OXFORD COMMEMORATION
DEGREES.
AN outcry, discreditable to its originators, has
been raised against the Earl of DERBY on
account of the selections he has made of welt
of distinction whom he recommends for the
honorary degree of D.C.L. at the apt
commemoration. the
commemoration. It has been represented
that Lord DERBY was about to flood the
University with his own partisans, and that in
number his nominees were too many, while
their claims to the intended honours were not
Commensurate. It is better, in eases where
custom rules, to refer to precedent. What was
the course pursued by the illustrious man who
preceded the Earl of DERBY as Chancellor of
the University of Oxford We find that the
Duke of WELLINGTON recommended no fewer
than seventy-six persons for the honorary

1

JUNE 4, 1833.

degree of D.C.L. Lord DEnav hats recom-
mended thirty-one. So that even in point of
mere numbers Lord DERBY is far within the
limit permitted to himself by the Duke Of
WELLINGTON. If we look to the claims of the
individuals respectively recommended, we find
the balance still more in favour of Lord
DERBY.* list. To institute personal eompa-
risons is quite beside our present objeet. which
is merely to neutralise. by a few plain facts, at
ridiculous, but nut the less pernicious. calumny.
Subjoined are the two lists—the Duke of WEL-
LINGTON'S, of seventy-six vandidates, and Lord
DERIIT's, of thirty-ono :
THE DUKE WELLtNGToN's Liss.
Baron Dedel.
'omit Matousherirn.
Inike of Wireknelt,
lrnke of Newcastle, K.I.
Marquis of Salisbury.
Marquis of Bute.
Earl of Wine Mises and Not•
tingham.
I arl of Wamick, K.T.
k.arl Debowery.
arl of Ross t .C.ll.
arl of Wilton.
arl &whitlow.
arl of Falmouth.
lord 11111 V ilk Charles
Henry Somerset.
I.ord Fitzroy Somerset,
Lord Francis Egerton.
Viscount Strangford, ti.C.B.
Lord Burghersh.
Pile John Vaughan.
Sir James Allan Park.
Sir James Searlett.
Earl of Clauwilliam.
Lord Norreys.
Viscount Mahon.
Viscount Encombe.
I.ard Arthur Hill.
Lord Munson.
Lord liagot.
Lord Rodney.
lord Montagu.
Lord Teiginuouth.
Lord Lyndhurst.
Lord Stuart de Hothesay.
Lord Wyuford.
Lord Templernore.
tienerat Sabloneuti.
Hou. Thomas Parker.
Charles Arbuthnot.

Henry Pierrepont.
Henry t ioullourn.
Sir It. Hussey Vivian, Nut.
Hon. George Klee Trevor.
Hon. M.S. Elithinstone.
Hun. Frainvis Spencer.
Earl of Dartmouth.
Vieount Cole.
LieutAieneral Sir henry
lane, 6.C.11.
Sir John I t,.burn, Bart,
Sir Chas. Morgan, Bart.
Sir Chas. Knightlev, Bart.
Sir John D. Paul, lint.
Sir Astley Cooper, Bart.
Colonel Sir William (haunt,
Sir Charles Wetherell.
Wm. Fr. bowntles Stone.
Alexander Baring.
James Buller East.
Tl as Edwa►d Foley.
Charles Ross.
Charles Yorke.
Wm. Ralph Catiwright.
Thomaa
Colonel Alexander Pereeval.
I.ieutenant•Colonel Thomas

Nloody.
llartholotnew Frere.
John Honing.
Evelyn Shirley.
Charles Scott Murray.
William Burge.
Joint Of ibson
James Lewis Knight.
William Stevens.
John ltutwrt flume.
it iehartl Jenkins.
11avill Wilkie.
Edward Blow.

THE EARL OF DE]
3larqiiis of Chandus.
Marquis of Woodford.
Narl of Hardwick...
Earl of Eglinton.
Earl of Mobuesbury.
Lord Colchester.
Lord Itedesdale.
Lord Stanley, M.P.
Lord St. I.conard's.
Major-General Sir E. Cost.
I.ieutensuit•General Rcevt'.
Sir E. L. Itulwer. liart., M.P.
Sir Archibald Alison. Mart.
Sir Roderick Murchison.
Philip Posey, Esq.
Profersor Avtouu.
Right Hun. R. Disraeli. M.P.
Right lion. S. H. Walpole,

N'S LIST, 1853.
Right Hun. J. W. Henley,
M.l'.
Right Hon. Joseph Napier,
M.P.
Dr. Forbes Winslow.
David Forbes. Eq.
Right Rev. C. Wordsworth,
Bishop of St. Andrew's,
Scotland.
Right Hon. T. B. Macaulay,
M.P.
His Grace the Duke of
Richmond.
Right Hon. Sir J. S. raking-
ton, M.P.
Major General Sir 11. Smith,
Bart.
The Bishop of Ohio.
G. A. Hamilton, Esq., M.P.
Samuel Warren, Esq.
A very cursory examination is sufficient to
show the folly as well as the injustice of the
charge insinuated rather than preferred against
Lord Maar. The assailants of the noble
earl's list have not only provoked this refuta
tion on the mere question of numbers ; they
have also rendered comparisons in a sense
inevitable, by the juxtaposition of the two lists.
These every reader can institute for himself.
It is enough to say, that in point of intellec-
tual fitness for the honour, the gentlemen de-
signated by Lord DERBY possess the superiority
in about the same proportion that in mere
numbers was enjoyed by those included in the
list of his predecessor.