The Press.
London, England, 1858-03-13 00:00:00

THE PRESS, MARCH 13, 1858.

Mr. V. SMITH should have had no "public correspondence" with Mr.
Burr, and that, while the latter gentleman's letters were marked "pri-
vate " or " confidential," Mr. SMITH should have kept no copies of his own.
Mr. SMITH seems to have been actuated by that constitutional modesty
which he really carries to an excess : "he thought so little of them."
On the other hand, Mr. Burr was actuated in his desire for secrecy by an
unwillingness in case of an appeal to Parliament to be met by the
Directors ►with his own proposals for a compromise. We now come to
the pecuniary part of the affair. About the 20th of June, 1857, the
Ameer offered Mr. BUTT 10,0001. to go to India, in consequence of the
remittal of his case to Bombay. Whether this added any urgency to
Mr. Burr's interviews with the Directors in July, we are left to conjec-
ture, but the offer seems not have been accepted till the end of July,
and, therefore, not till after the compromise had been effected. Mr
Burr certainly made no secret of the proposal, and consulted several
members and gentlemen of position respecting it; among others, Mr.
SEYMOUR FITZOERALD, the Under-Secretary for Foreign Affairs. He
was to have 3,0001. down, the residue in bills payable in India. On the
11th of August he received 3001., subsequently 2,0001. more. The
Ameer was on his way to Bombay, and TAr. Burr was preparing to
follow him, when, on the 14th of September, came a letter from the
Board of Control, representing that the Ameer could get no account
from COFFEY as to expenditure of certain moneys which ho had re-
ceived. Mr. Burr saw Sir GEORGE CLERK, and tho sums not accounted
for proved to be the 300/. and the 2,0001. which he had himself re-
ceived. He did not, however, tell Sir GEORGE that he knew the impu-
tation to be unjust, which he attributes to the fact that Sir GEORGE
just then chanced "to hurriedly change the conversation." Tt was, at
least, unfortunate that it should be Mr. Burr's duty to proceed to Trieste
immediately afterwards, and dismiss COFFEY for slandering the Ameer
to the British Embassy at Vienna. Whence the wrath of CoFFLY and
the above curious disclosures ! It is only fair to conclude an article,
already overlong, by stating that Mr. Burr still considers himself bound
to proceed eventually to India, or return the money.

" From the start at Cork Hill, and along the whole route to the
" place of embarkation, there were but few and faint ebullitions of
" popular sympathy" Such is the mode in which the Dublin corre-
spondent of the Times of Friday recounts the public departure from
Ireland of the Earl of CARLISLE. Such is the end of Lord CARLISLE'S
system of governing Ireland to please certain cliques of place-hunting
agitators. A few years ago the feelings towards Lord CARLISLE were
of a different kind, and grand public dinners were got up to
console him for having been beaten at Yorkshire in the West
Riding, and in the city of Dublin at the same general election. It is
worthy of historical record that at the great dinner then given in
honour of the " beloved Mourne( " the chair was taken by—the
Marquis of CLANRICARDE! It is now the year 1855, and Lord CLANai-
CARDS is to act next week on the principle of " every man his own
Boswell," while Lord CARLISLE leaves Ireland under "few and faint
" ebullitions of applause." After that, will any one deny that we arc
living in an " ago of progress"? On personal grounds Lord CARLISLE
has many claims to respect. He is kindly and genial, but we believe
that Lord CARLISLE was not enough of an actor to conceal his disgust
at some small politicians, while rehearsing their parts behind the
scenes; and we fear that Lord CARLISLE, with the best intentions, ad-
mitted to his social intimacy a class of persons that ought not to have
enjoyed the Viceregal hospitalities, unless it had been designed to
bring the office of Lord Lieutenant into disfavour with the gentry of
Ireland. Lord CARLISLE has many virtues calculated to adorn private
life, and even his warmest friends will admit that his Lordship would
appear to more advantage at Castle Howard than in the Castle of
Dublin. The indifference of the Irish Liberals at Lord CAR
LISLE'S leaving Ireland shows that the system of " Mulgravism " is
completely worn out.

We have received a pamphlet entitled " The Case of the Reforn: ers
in the Literary Fund," stated by Messrs. DIME; DICKENS. and FOSTER ;
and we have read its contents and compared it. with the Report of the
last annual meeting with great interest. As far as we can see at pre-
sent, the Reformers have failed in establishing a case against the
managing committee. Some of their grievances are untrue, some have
been repealed, and others are inevitable. For instance, the Reformers
say that the sum distributed in relieving claimants was during the
past year 1.2251., while the expense of its distribution was 5321. Now,
it appears that whereas the sum of 1,2251. represents only the amount
distributed in relief, the 5321. applies to the whole income of the
society, which is 2,6641.—that is to say, includes not only the expense
of distribution, but the expense of collection as well, the salary of
secretary, and, indeed, the entire expenses of the society. The same
kind of confusion occurs in giving the number of subscribers now and
m 1802. As an instance of a grievance which has been repealed, we
may mention that periodical writers are now admitted to rank as lite-
rary men, which they formerly were not. A complaint is also made
that the man who seeks the relief of this society, " no matter what his
" genius or his learning, no matter how manifoll his reasons for keep-
" ing secret his temporary distress, no matter how direful his need for
" prompt and immediate aid, must produce to the committee testi-
" ' menials of two or more respectable persons authenticating the
" facts' on which his application was grounded, and must lodge such
" testimonials with the secretary at least seven days before the meet-
": ing which was to determine their credibility." What we contend for
is, that there ought to be nothing more humiliating about the action of
the Literary Fund than there is in Queen Anne's Bounty or the Insti-
tution for the Sons of the Clergy. In all such cases we require testi-
mony and publicity. There is a college at Oxford at which a lad
cannot stand for certain scholarships without a certificate from resi-
dents in his father's parish that the latter is too poor to support him.

Yet there was never considered to bo anything humiliating in this.
We are aware of the peculiar reasons why literary men should
regard alms as a disgrace. But it is questionable how far it would be
desirable to relieve the donations of the Literary Fund, as at present
distributed, from every element of the disagreeable. At all events, as
there is no legal fund for briefless barristers, or medical or clerical
funds for Mr. Bob Sawyer or the Rev. Amos Barton, we think that
literary men in whose favour this peculiar exception exists have no
right to grumble at what seems to us an inevitable accompaniment.
How can precautions be other than disagreeable, and would not iho
Fund be bankrupt in six months if it did not take them?

We are not at all surprised at the spirited writing that has
appeared in the Daily News relative to the rumour that two pensions to
a large amount have been granted by the out-going Cabinet to two of
its subordinates. We cannot speak of our own knowledge on the
point whether those pensions have actually been granted, but there
has appeared no contradiction to these rumours. Mr. JAMES WILSON
is certainly a most fortunate gentleman. His party are defeated, and
he retires after five years' service upon a pension of twelve hundred
pounds per annum, and some of the journals have recorded the fact
that " Mr. JAMES Wit.sos has taken the mansion of the late Duke of
"MARLBOROUGH, in Belgrave-square." In debate Mr. WILSON was
known as "a figure member," in which he often met his equals, and
sometimes his superiors ; and as a writer on political economy Mr.
WILSON has produced nothing on his own side of the question
comparable to Mr. M'CoLtocx's productions, or to the works of the
late Mr. TOOKE. It has for many years been understood
that the official pension due to ex• Ministers cannot be given, except
where the claimant states "the inadequacy of his private fortune to
" maintain his station in life." The Pension Act is positive in this
provision, and it does seem strange that a gentleman with a residence
in Belgrave-square should, under the circumstances, claim tbe pen-
sion. Possibly such an acct might be meant as an acknowledgment of
virtuous poverty? We know that when ADDINGTON became Prime
Minister, that PITT, after having been seventeen years in office, re-
' duced his establishment expenses to a singularly small sum, and went
to live in a fourth-rate street. Mr. JAMES Wilson, after five years'
service as a subordinate, falls out of office, but rises up in Belgrave-
square, in the mansion occupied by the late proprietor of Blenheim ;
and certainly Belgravia is an odd locality for an "economist" wanting
1,2001 a year to choose for living in! Alluding to Mr. WILSON, and to
an ex-subordinate connected with the Admiralty, the Daily News ob-
serves :—" If it be found that the pensioners live handsomely, hare
" large mansions, and great counting-houses, and enter into and com-
" pete with the luxury and frivolity of fashionable life, the opinion
" may prevail that their case was not contemplated by the 4th and
" toth William IV., chap. 24, sec 6," and though the letter of the
enactment may have been complied with, that its spirit has been
violated.