The Press.
London, England, 1854-10-28 00:00:00

THE PRESS.

Here we have some fearfully grave questions
asked by the Edinburgh Review :
Guns, gunners, horses for the train, waggons to carry
the ammunition, spring carts for the use of the sick and
wounded, a bridge equipment, intrenching tools, uppers,
miners, engineers--all these, in due proportions, are ne-
cessary to render an army effective. Where were they?
Where are many of them still A few field batteries, giving
an average, we believe, of about one gun to every 1,000
men, have been equipped. They followed the infantry and
cavalry, and reached their destination by degrees ; but
waggons, spring carts, a bridge equipment, the army hue not
yet seen—we doubt whether it is ever likely to see some of
them.

How pathetically, with the lamentable facts
brought from Scutari, that question reads—
" Where are many of them still?" alluding to
the much-wanted spring carts for the wounded.
And let us mark, also, how the Edinburgh
Review doubts whether, of the necessaries
thus enumerated, "the army is ever likely to
" see some of them."

Verily our readers will agree with ourselves
that no more severe reflections could be
brought against the Cabinet and its war sys•
tem than are here published in the Edinburgh.
It adds to their damaging effect that it is no
secret that the distinguished periodical from
which we have quoted is under the literary
management of a learned and accomplished
relative of the Noble Earl who holds the seals
of the Foreign-office. Doubtless some of these
confessions of Ministerial ladies will not be
allowed to pass without notice in the next
session of Parliament.

OXFORD.—THE NEW HEBDOMADAL
COUNCIL.
" FROM and after the 24th day of October,"
as the act recites, " Young Oxford" is to try
its hand at improving the system under which
Old Oxford has hitherto helped largely to
make Old England what it is. On that day
" Congregation" elected the new council
that is to supplant the Board of Heads of
Houses in the government of the university.
" Congregation" consists, briefly, of the resi-

dent Masters of Arts; and it elects, according
to the recent act, six Heads of Houses, six
Professors, and six Masters of Arts, to form,
with the Chancellor, Vice-Chancellor, and Proc-
tors, the ruling body. They wield large powers ;
have the initiative of all measures to be sub-
mitted to Convocation ; have the internal man-
agement of university discipline and police
wholly in their hands ; and (which is at present
more important than either) can considerably
help or hinder the proceedings of her Majesty's
Oxford Commission during the two years of
its existence. There was not a little curiosity
to see how the new Congregation would use
its electing powers. It might elect a " happy
family" of all who had made themselves no-
torious for extreme views, and turn the Heb-
domadal Council into a debating club ; it
might commit itself to " progress" and the
Blue-book Commission ; it might turn out
simply obstructive, and be swamped by Lord
ELLESMERE, GOLDWIN SMITH, and Co.
Happily, as all the world seems to agree in
thinking, it has adopted none of the prover-
bial " three courses." There is to all appear-
ance a fair representation of the existing
parties that divide Oxford. There are Drs.
GAISFORD and WILLIAMS to represent " Church
" and State ;" Dr. SYMONDS to propitiate the
" Evangelicals;' Dr. PUSEY and Mr. MOZLEY
to overbalance him; Dr. JEUNE to shed the
light of his countenance on the Dissenters ;
Dr. HAWKINS for the Amoldians ; Dr. Scorr
and Dr. LIGHTFOOT do duty for " Young
Oxford ;" Mr. MANSEL and Mr. GORDON for
" crotchets;" Mr. MICHELE represents the
routine, Professors CARDWEI.L the research,
DAUBENY the science, WILSON the simplicity,
and DONIUN the silence, of the old regime.
Professor HUSSEY, the best cricketer at school,
the best skater and boater at college, the best
tutor, the ablest professor that Oxford has
known for long, is deservedly at the head of
all the list, representing no particular interest,
but elected because every one feels what the
great Duke said of him, " that man's a man."
The omissions are as remarkable as the elec-

1011

tions. Extremes have been carefully tabooed.
Professors CONINGTON, BADEN POWELL, and
VAUGHAN are " nowhere;" on the other side,
Messrs. RAWLINSON, WooLcoMBR, and high
Gladstonians in general, are " nowhere," We
miss a few good names—Drs. JACOBSON, MAC-
BRIDE, and ACLAND, for instance—but, also, we
miss very many bad ones, and are thankful
accordingly. The election is a very fair one.
Only it is just there that our doubts about
the whole matter begin. Nobody pretends to
believe that Dr. JEUNK or Dr. Posav could
have been elected by the votes of their own,
unaided, party. The whole affair gives one the
notion that there has been a tacit compromise,
of which one party is making its game, not the
less surely because secretly.
The Queen's Commission has two years'
lease of its life. The " dodge " is to elect
meanwhile a colourless executive, powerless
for evil, and neutral for good, as regards the
university, and to give the Commission full
play, meanwhile, on the colleges. Those won,
their statutes manipulated, all is won, and
thenceforward Rationalism and Jesuitism pro-
pose to fight it out on a clear stage.
We do not overstate the danger to the
Church or to Protestantism. Let the two
years be " tided over " by this sort of board
and the name of Oxford will convey associa-
tions very different from those it now awakens
in the heart of every Oxford man. In the
first place the Dissenters will have established
an " interest" there : Mr. PETO and the Evan-
gelical Alliance leave us in no doubt on the
' matter. They are going to found a " hall "at
once. They hope to win for dissenting chil-
dren the advantages of an " Oxford educa-
tion." We do not blame them ; we only say it
is impossible. It is like blue trying to be
yellow by mixing with it.
But next there come our Jesuit friends, who
delight in this calm inauguration of the new
state of things, all the more because it is so
peaceful. The " Catholic University " pos-
sesses 30,0001. in hard cash—has expended
not a penny in bricks and mortar as yet; and
they are " Dissenters " also. Let the transi •
tion-time of the two years pass by quietly ;
give them a quiescent Hebdomadal Council,
and give the Commissioners a fair amount of
" liberal and enlightened " liberty of action,
and then, in a year or two, nothing particular
has happened, only another " hall' is opened ;
Mr. So-and-So, a highly respectable Master of
Arts, and member of the Church of England,
is its nominal head—in other words, " does
the swearing" for the establishment. Nzw-
MAN, MANNING, OAKLEY, WARD, MORRIS, &LAGER,
LEWIS, FABER, TICKELL—you have a brilliant
array of " pervert" tutors ready to return to
Oxford. ['he hall has a beautiful chapel,
gives excellent dinners, invites everybody, in-
veigles not a few, and the Hebdomadal
Council begins slowly to suspect that it has
been doing somebody else's work. Dr.
SYMONS is in covulsions, and England asks,
Where is Oxford ?

MR. GLADSTONE.
IN our publication of the 30th ultimo we stated
briefly the facts connected with Mr. GLADSTONE'S
first great financial operation—namely, his reduc-
tion, on the 14th of February, 1853, of the interest
on Exchequer Bills to ld. per day, or 11. 104. bd. pet
annum. We imputed to him a financial blunder of
the gravest nature in lowering the interest oni •
Exchequer Bills when the interest of money gene-
rally was rising. We proved that this was the case!
by quoting the price of Consols, the state of then,
circulation, of the bullion in bank, and of the rate of
discount for some time previously, each and all of
~
which afforded concurrent and conclusive evidence oi,l
an upward tendency in the interest of money at the
period when this first achievement of Mr. Girnsvome
was accomplished. We stated that no prudent I
statesman would have been unobservant of those'
indications, and that Mr. GLADSTONE made an in-
excusable mistake, a mistake which betrayed care.;
beefless or Ignorance of elementary principles, when
he ran counter to these patent facts.
We promised that we would next point out the
results of this financial mistake, and we proceed to
do so.

1012

Perhaps The most obvious and intelligible mode of
treating this part of the subject will be to place
before our readers in figures, and from documents
which cannot be questioned, the charge or cost to the
country of Exchequer Bills on the 13th of February,
1853, before the operation took place, and the charge
or cost to the country of the same amount of
Exchequer Bills at the present time. By reference
to the parliamentary paper (60 of last session it will
be seen that on the 13th of February, 1853, there
were outstanding Exchequer Bills to the amount of
17,742,5001., and that of these Exchequer Bills
9,238,7001. bore interest at the rate of lid. per day,
or 11. 18s. Old. per annum, being the June bills,
1852, affected by Mr. DISRAELI'S reduction of the
May previous ; while the remainder, viz., 8,503,8001.,
being the March bills, 1852, and unaffected by Mr.
DISRAELI'S reduction, bore interest at the rate of lid.
per day, or 21. ss. 71d. per annum ; and the charge
of those two classes of Exchequer Bills were as
f ows :
£9,238,700 at lid. .... £175,631 10s. Bid.
£8,503,800 at lid. .... £193,994 18s. 9d.

£17,742,500 £309,620 9s. 51d.
These latter bills, of course, on becoming ex-
changeable in March, 1853, would have fallen under
Mr. DISRAELI'S reduction, and the charge for the
whole 17,742,500/. Exchequer Bills hese be-
oome 837,2921. Os. 40. The charge, therefore,
supposing Mr. GLADSTONE to have made no altera-
tion, but to have been satisfied with carrying out his
predecessor's operation, and supposing also that he
had exchanged the 8,503,8001. March bills for others
at the rate fixed by Mr. DISRAELI, namely, lid. per
day, or U. 18s. Old. per annum, would have been at
the present time for the whole 17,742,5001. Exchequer
Bills
But we are now paying 2d. a
day, or 31. Os. 10d. per
annum, for the same
17,742,5001 £539,607 14s. 2d.
Actual loss
Now, this is the plain matter-of-fact view of the
case. Had things remained as they were we should
now have been paying 337,2921. for our Exchequer
Bills.
The result of Mr. GLADSTONE'S operation has in-
volved us in a charge of 539,6671., and in a loss of
202,3751.
But it may be said that in the foregoing statement
we are dealing unfairly by Mr. GLADSTONE ; that the
difference in the cost or charge of Exchequer Bills at
the present time as compared with February, 1858,
and the increased charge of 202,3751., is attributable,
not to his operation in February, 1853, but to the in-
crease in the rate of interest on Exchequer Bills made
by him on the 11th of October, 1853, from Id. to 2d. per
day, and which increase was rendered necessary by
circumstances unconnected with the operation of the
preceding February. We have no desire to deal
unfairly with Mr. GLADSTONE in any way. Our
argument is this. Mr. GLADSTONE, on the 14th of
February, 1858, made a financial blunder in reducing
the interest on Exchequer Bills to Id. when the rate
of interest generally was rising; this mistake on his
part, by deranging the proper relations between the
interest on Exchequer Bills and the ordinary interest
of money, and by creating, moreover, mistrust and
insecurity as regards Exchequer Bills, led the holders
of the June bills to demand money for their bills
instead of accepting bills in exchange ; that this,
with other causes, exhausted the Exchequer ; that
Exchequer Bills would no longer float; and that, in
consequence, when it became necessary to replenish
the Exchequer in October, by the issue of the
Exchequer Bills rejected in June, Mr. GLADSTONE
was obliged not only to undo his operation of
February, but to reverse it, and to double the rate of
interest on Exchequer Bills, raising it from Id. to 2d.
a day, and thus giving a higher interest for Exchequer
Bills than they had borne for a considerable time,
we believe we might say for several years. We
allege that the whole was one series of cause and
effect. First, an improvident reduction in February ;
causing, secondly, a demand for payment in money;
and that occasioning, thirdly, a financial derange-
ment in the Exchequer; which resulted, fourthly, in
the necessity of doubling the rate of interest in
October; the whole consequently having its origin in
the improvident reduction in February. If, then, we
can establish that these several events do bear to
each other the relation of cause and effect, it cannot
be denied that we are justified in our statement
that Mr. GLADSTONE'S first financial operation has
involved the country in a loss of at least 202,3751.
a year.
Let us, then, as the first step, consider whether, if
Mr. GLADSTONE had been observant of the manifest
signs of approaching difficulties, and had made no
further reduction in the rate of interest on Exche-
quer Bills in February, 1853, he could have ex-
changed the 8,503,8001. March bills, then bearing
interest at lid. per day, for new bills bearing the
same rate of interest, or bearing the rate of interest

TFI

PRESS.

settled by Mr. Durum in respect of the June bills
of 1852. In fact, supposing Mr. GLADSTONE to have
aimed at no financial achievement as regards Exche-
quer Bills, would the bills about to he issued in
March, 1853, in exchange for those then payable,
have floated in the market? Upon this point there can
be no doubt. It appears from the parliamentary
paper (66) to which we have already referred that
Exchequer Bills to the extent of 8,477,2001. were
actually issued on the 10th of March, 1853, at the
reduced interest of Id. per day ; and Mr. GLADSTONE,
in his speech on the 6th of March, 1854, made a
boast of the fact that for two months after his reduc-
tion, in February, 1853, the premium on Exchequer
Bills ranged between 10s. and 20s. So far, then, it
is beyond question that, had Mr. GLADSTONE, in
February, 1853, merely carried out the prudent
operation of his predecessor, the March Exche-
quer Bills would have floated, and the condition
of the whole Fachequer-Bill account would then
have been 17,742,5001., at a uniform rate of led. per
day, or 11. 18s. Old. per annum, amounting to 337,202/.
6s. 41d. Well, then, the next. and more important
question is that in reference to the 9,238,7001. Ex-
chequer Bills payable or exchangeable in June, 1853.
Would they have borne a premium or floated at the
rate of lld. per day, or 1/. 18s. Old, per annum?
Upon this point, also, if our readers will follow us,
we think it can be shown that no reasonable doubt
can exist.
The paper (66) informs us, in table ii., page 3,
that, even at the reduced rate of Id., on the 9th of
June, 1853, 10,753 Exchequer Bills, in amount
5,890,5001., were actually issued, while between the
Ist and 10th of June bills to the amount of 2,910,0001.
had to be paid in money. And it appears from the
returns of the monthly price of stocks that the lowest
price of Exchequer Bills in the month of June was
1 discount. Exchequer Bills, therefore, were at
that period exactly in a state of equilibrium. In
such case, it is clear, the farthing per day would have
made all the difference. Had the interest been 11d.,
or 1/. 18s. Old., instead of Id., or 1/. 10s. 5d., it can-
not be doubted that the holders of the 2,910,0001.
Exchequer Bills who demanded money would have
accepted new Exchequer Bills in exchange, and the
financial catastrophe of October would have been
avoided.
We can give other reasons which lead to the same
conclusion. In June, 1852, the price of Consols was
from 1001 to 1011. Taking the medium, 1001. 16s.
3d., it will be found that the rate of interest afforded
by Consols, which may be taken as the index of all
the permanent funds, was 21. 19s. Old., within a
very small fraction of three per cent. Exchequer
Bills bearing an interest of 11. 18s. Old. then bore a
premium of 69 to 83.
In June, 1859, the price of Consols was from 1001
to 104 Taking the medium, 1001. 3s. 9d., it will be
found that the interest rendered then by Consols was
a small fraction (less than 2d.) under three per
cent ; so that, for all practical purposes, it may be
assumed that Consols, and the other permanent
Government stocks, rendered the same rate of in-
terest in June, 1852, and in June, 1853. We admit,
as we stated on a former occasion, and as we shall
have to remark again, that the price of Consols, or
the interest rendered by Consols, isnot to be taken
as regulating altogether the price of Exchequer
Bills. But what we maintain is this, that the price,
and interest, of Consols being as nearly as possible
the same in June, 1852, and June, 1853, and Exche-
quer Bills in June, 1852, being at a premium of 69
to 83, it is a reasonable supposition, amounting to a
certainty, that but for the reduction of interest of
Exchequer Bills in February, 1853, under the cir-
cumstances we have stated, the June bills, 1853,
would have been accepted; and, if they had been
then accepted, it would not have been necessary to
have advanced the interest in the October following.
There is one other phase under which we desire
at present to present this subject to our readers. We
have already stated that Mr GLADSTONE, in his inor-
dinate desire to outdo Mr. DISRAELI, inconsiderately
disturbed the relation between Exchequer Bills and
other species of Government securities. We are
anxious to illustrate this remark by a few figures.
In June, 1852, as we have observed, Consols ren-
dered an interest of 21. 19s. 6d.; the rate of interest
on Exchequer Bills being then 11. 18s. Old.; the
difference was 1/. Is. sfd ; that is to say, Exchequer
Bills bore an interest less by 1/. Is. sfd. than the
ordinary rate of the permanent Government stocks.
In June, 1853, Consols rendered an interest of about
21. 19s. 10d.; the reduced rate of interest on Ex-
chequer Bills being then 1/. 10s. 5d.; the difference
was no less than 11. 9s. 5d., a difference so great in its
proportion to the whole interest payable in respect of
Exchequer Bills that it only, we think, requires to
be noticed to convince any one that it must have
disturbed the whole natural relation of Exchequer
Bills to other Government securities. The fact is,
that of all species of Government securities-we
might perhaps add, of all things which represent
value-Exchequer Bills are the most delicate, and
require the greatest prudence and the best judgment

SATURDAY,

in dealing with them. They stand in rather a❑ ano-
malous position. Subject to many of the laws and
properties and influences of a circulating medium,
and, from their large amount, discharging most im-
portant functions, both in our commerchtl and mone-
tary system, they partake also of the nature of
Government securities, and are under the control
and caprice of a Chancellor of the Exchequer as no
other portion of our Government securities, and as
no portion of our mere monetary system, would be
permitted to be.
They are not a species of security to be tampered
with, or made the subject of rash and inconsiderate
experiment.
Mr. GLADSTONE, with all his ability, is rash, self.
willed, and hasty. He could not resist the tempts
tion of a financial achievement, especially if it had
the character of outdoing Mr. DISRAELI. The first
subject that presented itself to the ambitious CHAN-
CELLOR of the EXCHEQUER was the interest on Exehe•
quer Bills. At an auspicious moment Mr. Dissugu
had 'educed the interest, and thereby effected a
saving to the country of 35,0001. a year. Mr. GLAD-
LTONE, at au inauspicious moment, by reducing it
still further, hai involved the country in a direct loss
of 202,375/. a year, to say nothing at present of the
indirect and collateral losses which flowed from it.
This has been the result of Mr, OLAnsrosx's first
financial operation.

TRADE IN RUSSIAN PRODUCE. 'MO
A SINGULARLY illogical article in the " leading *tr.
nal" of Wednesday demands passing notice. It is
admitted that the effect of the order in council ad-
mitting enemy's produce during war has been most
beneficial to Russia, and that " a large amount of
" gold is still being remitted to Russia in exchange
" for its produce," but it is contended, on the other
hand, that our" community have been benefited by
" the supplies of hemp, tallow, flax, and linseed,
" which have reached us through the neutral ports:'
So far, the argument on the ground of reciprocity
of interest is intelligible enough, only it may be
asked why, if this trade is to be allowed on the
ground of mutual advantage, are the ports of Russia
to be blocked at all? The writer, still strongly
arguing against any prohibition of Russian produce,
as being likely to distress our people and enormously
raise prices, considers the expediency of resorting
" to coercive measures against those ports which
" serve, by their geographical position, all the pur-
" poses of Russian ports in a neutral territory." Be-
cause Russian produce is transmitted to us through
the ports of Prussia, that power is said to pursue
an " unjust and injurious course." How so? If it
be desirable for us to receive Russian produce
through any neutral port, we ought to be glad to
get it through that neutral port most convenient,
in order to save that rise of price which the writer
deprecates. But the fact is, that it is impossible to
reconcile the order in council admitting enemy's •
produce with any restrictions to exclude it. In other.
words, what may be called governments) war and
commercial peace cannot be maintained together,
and our merchants and whole community must be
prepared to make all necessary sacrifices to cripple
our enemy. While on this subject, our weekly con-
temporary, the Leader, must allow us to correct a
mistatement in his last issue. The PRESS did not
quote its returns of Russian produce imported
during the eight first months of the present year
from the Invalidea Runes, as the Leader supposes/
but from " the Trade and Navigation Returns, or-
" dere' by the House of Commons to be printed."

dered
THERE has been a rupture between the Govern-
ment and the GUNMAKERS at Birmingham. The
execution of the contracts for the Board of Ordnance
has been progressed with so tardily that the head of
the department from London announced that, in Con-
sequence of the delays, an order had been despatched
to the establishment at Liege for 20,000 guns. Some
of the most extensive gunmakers foresee the creation
of a Government factory of small arms which has
been suggested more than once.
Iv ever the memory of a brave man deserved con-
secration, that of Dn. JAMES THOMSON, assistant-
surgeon of the 44th Regiment, merits such a &uric.
tion. He and his soldier-servant had to wait upon
and support the seven hundred wounded Russians
who were removed from the south to the north bank
of the Alma after the battle. The patients themselves
were not to be trusted. The Cossacks were also at
hand, the dead were festering in heaps around the
sick and dying, and the two poor fellows had to btu/
carcases and fragments before they could get at the
suffering, wounded wretches. The soldier managed
to drive in a stray bullock which was killed and made
into soup. Eventually 340 of the patients were con-
veyed on board the screw-transport Avon and born. e
to Odessa. This noble, unselfish minister of charity,
at such a trying time, sank in two or three days after-
wards under an attack of cholera.

''`•T