The Press.
London, England, 1854-05-06 00:00:00

T Wri 213 ErStY

That the Government will still endeavour
to go on with this bill we do not doubt. It is
now the last of all those measures of Reform
which were so boastingly promised ; and there
must be a cheer for "No surrender" in the
midst of a series of the most ignominious de-
featEi which any Ministry ever sustained.
Besides, the bill, though much shorn of its
mischievous proportions, will still tend to
strengthen Mr. GLADSTONE'S party, and
develop Tractarian influence. To destroy the
action of Convocation—to exclude " external
influence " from the University—and practi-
cally to throw all power into the hands of the
"resident body," are objects worth striving fbr ;
and as such politicians as Sir JAMES GRAHAM
and Sir WILLIAM MOLESWORTII ii.ro at Mr.
GLADSTONE'S beck, it is possible those objects
may be accomplished, unless the gentlemen of
England discern in time the insidious pur-
pose of the measure, and protest against
their old and honoured Alma Mater being
given over to the influences they have so
much reason to mistrust.

RAILWAY GRIEVANCES.
MR. CARDWELL has shown that kind of wisdom
which consists in making an inevitable con
cession with a good grace. In our last number
we expressed the general opinion of the public
on his project for the confiscation of railway
property. We are happy to find that the
arguments used by ourselves, as by many
others, have not been without their weight.
The bill is withdrawn, and a new one substi-
tuted, of which we have nothing better or
worse to say than that it is a waste of paper
and print. Enforcing nothing—not adding in
any respect to the stringency of already
existing enactments—it merits neither appro-
bation nor censure. In its present shape it
would be useless ; but, as there is a practical
grievance of recent growth, which, if not
speedily checked, promises to be attended
with many mischievous results, and as it is
one, moreover, which admits of a very easy
and effective remedy, we call attention to it.
Within the last year or two the liability of
railway companies has been restricted by a
series of decisions in the courts of common
law to an extent of which probably few of our
readers are aware. In one extensive branch
of business, viz., in the conveyance of cattle
and other live stock, they seem to have suc-
ceeded in practically divesting themselves of
all responsibility, even in the case of injuries
arising from their own gross negligence. In
the Court of Queen's Bench an action was
brought, not long since, against the Lancashire
and Yorkshire Railway Company for the loss
of certain cattle which had been conveyed by
that line. They had been placed in a truck
which was pronounced by a jury to be defective
in construction, and unsafe for the conveyance
of live stock ; and the consequence was that
several of the animals leaped from the train
while it was in motion and were killed. The
defence to the action was, that previous to
their departure the owner of the cattle bad
signed a ticket in which it was stated that
the company would not be responsible for any
injury or damage occurring to live stook, "how-
ever caused." The court held that they were
protected from liability by this notice.
In a subsequent action brought against the
same company for the loss of a horse, the
Court of Exchequer arrived at a similar con-
clusion. In this case, too, the jury had found
that the company had been guilty of gross,
negligence, and had found a verdict for the:
plaintiff for the 11111 value of the horse; but
the Learned Barons held; like their brethren in
the Queen's Bench, that by signing the notice
of the company the owner of the horse had
barred his right of action.
This may be startling netvs to otir agricul-
tural readers, but they must not despair. By
following the counsel of Baron PAXILE they may
still set railway officials at defiance. " If,"
observed that Learned Judge, " the plaintiff
" had meant to make the defendants liable as
" common carriers, the course for him to take
" was to tender them the price for the car-
" riage of the goods, and, on their refusal to

~ ~ ~~~~~

" carry, to bring an action against them for
" not carrying." Here, then, we have the
remedy, and the only one which the law at
present provides. We are not obliged to sign
a contract with a railway company which will
protect them against any a'meunt of negligence
on their part. Common law regards railway
companies only as common carriers, and we
arc entitled to bring an action to compel them
to carry our property upon the same terms as
public carriers. Bet did the very Learned
Judge Whom we have last quoted consider the
results of a practical application of his remedy ?
Let us imagine the bewilderment with which
a north-country tier hurrying off a lot of fat
beeves for the Christmas show in Baker-street,
or an Irishman with a score of pigs on the
same errand, or a training jockey starting for
Epsom with the favourite for the Derby, would
listen to the alternative of Baron PARKE.
That it is the only one is nevertheless a
melancholy fact.
We submit, with all deference to the Learned
Baron, that this is an evil with which the
Legislature alone can deal. We do not see Why
a clause should not be inserted in the bill now
before the House declaring that in no case shall
railway companies in future be protected
against the consequences of their own miscon-
duct or neglect. This would be but a simple
act of justice to the public, and we cannot help
thinking that it would prove in the end bene-
ficial to the companies themselves.

FINANCE.
THERE was a Chancellor of the Exchequer
once whq, through modesty or egotism, pub-
lished through the town that no one had ever
filled the office so contemptibly as himself.
If he fbunded his hopes of fame on the per-
petuity of hie distinction this present year
would witness their disappointment In
financial failure Sir FRANCIS DASHNOOD must
yield the pas to Mr. GLADSTONE.
By what clever manoeuvring he has managed
to repel the world of capital from even, send-
ing in tenders for his Exchequer Bonds we
do not know. Strong, indeed, must be the
distrust entertained of his wily management
when his tempting proposals scarcely secured
him a single; hid. Two or three Dr. PRIM-
KosEs seem to have been anxious,—doubtless
from patriotic motives,—to assist the Exche-
quer in its distress, and sent in tenders at an
extravagant rate. We hope that they may
not, like the few persons who acceded to the
conversion scheme, be made victims to their
credulity.
As he cannot obtain six millions the CHAN-
CELLOR of the Exenequen solicits two. The
proceeding is too absurd for grave comment.
It more resembles the petition of Jeremy
Diddler, or il}e polite entreaty of that cha-
racter in Drbtans who, after vainly endeavour-
ing to obtain a good snm on loan, comes down
to " the ridiculously small sum of eighteen-
" pence," than the policy of .a national finan-
cier. Every one is wondering what he will do
with his two millions should he be' so fortu-
nate as to get them. Supplemental estimates
have been prepared to the amount of
5,595,0001., and, „ea the necessities of the
Treaury become greater, it is to be expected
that the rate of motley will rise. The tefins
he no* eflhrs Olt &Ohl to' interest at the rate
of four per rent. What a comment' on the
rashness which emptied the Treasury to pay
off eight millions at three per cent!
Another financial statement is to be made
on 'Monday. Mr. G-LAnsToss must be singu-
larly constituted. One .vcmld almest think
that be committOd blunders for no other pur-
pose than to furnish a lengthened commen-
tary on them. His failure' is not complete
until he ban artiptinee it himself with a great
flourish of trumpets. A history if his ad-
ministration would be but the detail of a long
series of capital errors.
In the financial debates in the Lcirdli this
week his mismanagement has been searchingly
exposed. When Mr. DISRAELI was in office,
said Lord MONTE/out, he had succeeded in
reducing the interest on Exchequer Bills to

MAY 6, 1854.

lid per day,—the lowest point it had ever
reached. A considerable saving was thus
effected for the public without the slightest
inconvenience to the Exchequer. Mr. GLAD-
STONE, when money was rising in value, de
termined to reduce the interest lower yet,
fixed it at Id, and had to pay off three millions,
which, " had he left well alone,"—the words
are Lord MONTEAOLE'S,—" would have con-
tinued to float on the market." As the result
of his first failure, he had to issue the 3,000,000/.
again on much less favourable terms, and thus
not only burdened the public, but injured the
character of the security.
Next came the famous conversion scheme,
by which the fortunate holders of the stocks
to be converted realised at the expense of the
nation a clear bonus of from 10 to 15 per cent.
The details given of particular instances are
amusing : The University of Cambridge
turned their 90,000/, into 100,000/., and old
ladies and gentlemen innumerable found
themselves suddenly enriched by a process
which they could not understand, except by
referring it to the well-known benevolence of
the Right Hon. Gentleman at the head of the
Exchequer.
One point of some importance has been
clearly established by these debates. While
Mr. GLADSTONE was playing these tricks with
our finances, the Cabinet of which he was a
member was forewarned of the threatening
attitude of Russia, and the possibility of
war. It knew also that the harvest must be
deficient, it saw that the Money Market was
" tightening, " yet Mr. GLADSTONE persisted
in reducing the balance in the Exchequer
from nearly eight millions which existed there
on the sth of April, 1853, to less than three
millions on sth of April, 1854.
In what thicker difficulties he will involve
our finances, if he be not arrested in his
course, no one can tell. In the lowest deep
we are told there is a lower still. The depth
of Mr. GLADSTONE'S incompetency and of the
national loss has not yet been sounded. One
thing is certain, that, if the Legislature wishes
to retain its character for common sense, it
will take prompt and decisive measures for
getting rid of the presumptuous and ignorant
experimentalist, whose whole administration,
from his first assumption of office to this hour,
has been one continued violation of its plainest
dictates.

ARREARS OF IRISH BUSINESS.
THE efficiency of the Irish department of the
present Cabinet has become, even to its par•
tisane, more than questionable. It would
appear that Lord Sr. GERMANS and his officials
were not prepared to deal in any decided
manner with the land question. Evading
responsibility, the Cabinet referred the subject
of `lrish tenures to a committee of the House
of Lords, and at this period of the year it
would be hopeless to expect that our dilatory
rulers would quicken their activity on " mere
Irish" affairs, while they are so slow in the
emergencies of England. In the meantime, it
is worth noting that the " Irish League" is
preparing for a new agitation on the subject,
and that its organisers are already taking
measures for making tenant right "a cry" at
the next general election.
It would seem, also, that the Cabinet mea-
sure on " ministers' money " will not find
much favour from the Roman Catholics, who
say that they consider that Sir JOHN YOUNG
offers them no relief by proposing to transfer
the collection of the tax from the agents of the
Established Church to the officers of corpora.
tions. It is believed that this notable plan
emanates directly from the Peelite section of
the Cabinet. The recollection that he owes
his increased Income Tax to the Budget of
Mr. GLADSTONE will not add to the comfort of
the Roman Catholic while paying his "minis-
ters' money " under another name.
Apart from any sectarian or political feel-
ings, Ireland has strong reasons for dissatis-
faction with the conduct of the Aberdeen
Cabinet. On questions exciting religious
sympathies its policy is shuffling and evasive.