The Press.
London, England, 1858-05-22 00:00:00

THE PRESS, MAY 22, 1858.

there was much loose thinking abroad, and infi-
delity showed a more audacious and " popular"
front than it now presumes to do. The Jew
question was argued then in a dictatorial and
peremptory manner. The House of Commons
passed it readily, and it is not to be wondered at
that the House of Lords objected to legislation
carried on in such a spirit.
In 1829, when the Roman Catholic question
was passed, l'arliament disfranchised the Irish
forty-shilling freeholders, imposed a " Catholic
Oath," and protected the offices of Viceroy of
Ireland and Lord Chancellor from the Roman
Catholic ambition. These measures, though
slight "securities," are of constitutional signifi-
cance as to the interpretation of the measure of
1829, which must not be construed as intention-
ally anti-Protestant, even though it was fraught
with grave peril. The suggestion has been
thrown out that the Jew question might be
settled, if the Legislature made certain declara-
tions, and if steps were taken which would
amount to patent evidence that admission of the
Jews was not to be interpreted as an overt act of
Parliamentary indifference to Christianity. But
in the present state of our columns we cannot
enter on this branch of our subject, and must
reserve our remarks for another time, observing
that it often happens in public, as in private life,
that favours refused as things of right are after-
wards conceded as matters of permission.

PEERAGE PECULIARITIES.
Two features in the recent division in the House
of Lords seem to call for a brief notice.

1. The conduct of some members of the Epis-
copal Bench was calculated to give pain to the
friends of the Church, and to strengthen the
hands of those who demand the exclusion of the
Bishops from the House of Lords.
The motion was of a transparently party cha-
racter. It was concocted at a meeting held on
the Sabbath-day, at the house of the late Pre-
mier, and which meeting was attended by most
of the members of the late Cabinet. The object
of the whole movement was never concealed ; it
was to drive Lord DERBY from power, and to trans-
fer the Government to Lard PALmEnsToN. This
was just such a motion as we might have expected
most prelates of discretion and proper feeling to
have eschewed. And this very line of conduct
was adopted by most of the Conservative Bishops.
We do not find the Archbishops of CANTERBURY
or ARMAGH voting either in person or by proxy.
Nor do we see the names of the Bishops
of WINCHESTER, PETERBOROUGH, ELY, BANGOR,

LINCOLN, or LICHFIELD. The Bishops of
DURHAM and CHESTER are regarded as Whigs,
but their sense of propriety prevented their
appearance in this party scuffle, even by proxy.
Must it not be painful, then, to see such men as
the Bishops of CARLISLE, LONDON, and RIPON
appearing in the front rank of the fight, for no
other conceivable reason than that they were
raised to the bench by Lord PALMERSTON, and
were therefore—so runs the reasoning—bound to
help him at a pinch !
2. But while the Bishops were thus hazarding
the safety of the Church, what were the Roman
Catholic Peers doing? Ten Roman Catholic
Lords opposed the Government on a question
upon which a vast number of independent
politicians support her Majesty's Ministers. Four
of the Romish Peers were " present " in
favour of the Palmerstonian " cabal ;" and

there were " proxies" for the same purpose
from six others. We cannot see that one
Roman Catholic Peer supported Government.

And who was it that was chosen to second the
vote of censure in the House of Commons ? It
was the same Member of Parliament, Mr. Ser-
geant DEAsv, whom the Roman Catholic body
last year selected for the purpose of bringing
forward a motion for the alteration of the Roman
Catholic Oath, one of the few securities of 1829.

Facts like these require no comment. The Ro-
man Catholic body has lent its force to the
" Cabal," because it knows that certain persons
in the Liberal connection would go any length
in search of votes, and a change of Government
would enormously increase the power of the
Roman Catholic body. The fact that no Roman
Catholic Peer has supported the Government,
while ten Peers of that persuasion have given
their influence to the Opposition, proves an
animus of a most singular kind. Ultenor objects
of a nature less ephemeral than considerations of
" party " could alone have actuated the combi-
nation of so many Romanist Peers.
It is known, besides, that a considerable sec-
tion of the Parliamentary Roman Catholics are
now prepared to allow of leadership being again
given to Lord JOHN RUSSELL, and the Pope need
not dread any more " Durham Letters." We
think it is tolerably plain that the Mover of
the Resolution, and certain Bishops, his friends,
have been duped on this occasion by the per-
sonage who is an object of so much abhorrence
to the Evangelical Alliance.

REAL CHARACTER OF THE NATIONAL
DEBT.
TO THE EDITOR OF " THE PRESS."
Sir,—The common cry of speculative politicians
has been that the existence of the National Debt is
burdensome, its increase alarming, and its extension
beyond a limited point likely to be fatal. Thus far
they certainly have been mistaken—that all the
limits they have set to its extension successively
have been much exceeded without producing any
such result as they expected. This mistake arises,
unquestionably, from not properly distinguishing
different things called by the same name, and, there..
fore, from confounding the nature of what was called
a public debt with that of a private debt. The latter
I confess to be ruinous ; but the other I consider
as more properly to be called the public ability than
the public debt, being a vast ideal capital, the inte-
rest of which is kept in constant circulation and
actual use, instead of being unproductively hoarded,
by means of the funds.
Sir, I contend that paying off any great part of
the debt would render the payment of the taxes that
still remained much more an object of complaint
than before they were taken off, and would
make it still more difficult on any emergency
to raise supplies, or to exert the public ability
with energy ; and that the increase of indite-
trious employments, arising from the circula-
tion of the public interest from the funds, will ever
proceed faster than the taxes drawn from the per-
sons so obtaining a livelihood can possibly do.
These ideas are, methinks, important. They are,
doubtless, just in a great degree ; but the difficulty
of laying on taxes, after a time, without a consider-
able change in the opinions of the pnblie, will be
likely to prevent the tact from keeping pace with the
theory. The argument, however, deserves serious
consideration.—l am, sir, your humble servant,
CHARLES ALDatca.
Hobart street, Stonehouse, Plymouth.
May 18th, 1858.

MR. LEWIS LOYD, the father of Lord Overstone,
whose death is just reported as having taken place
at his son's seat in Northamptonshire, at the
venerable age of ninety, was tor a period of fifty
years the head of the eminent banking house of
Jones, Loyd, and Co., of Manchester, and of Loth-
bury, London. He was the eldest son of Mr. Wm.
Loyd of Court Henry, Carmarthenshire, and early in
life became the pastor of a small dissenting
chapel at Manchester; but having married the only
daughter of Mr. John Jones, a wealthy merchant of
that city, he quitted his profession, or rather ex.
changed it, for the world of commerce. His father-
in-law took him into partnership at Manchester,
and he showed great capacity in his new posi•
tion. After some years, in consequence of re-
peated complaints on the part of their London
agents as to the difficulty of keeping the accounts
of the firm, it was agreed that Mr. Loyd
should proceed to the metropolis and establish there
a bank under the same name as the original firm.
This he did, and Jones Loyd and Co. of Manchester
drew bills on Jones Loyd and Co. of Lothbury,
London. The results of Mr. Loyd's energy, indus-
try, and mercantile intelligence, are to be seen
directly in the great banking-house which bears his
name, and more remotely in the elevation of his
son, Mr. Samuel Jones Loyd to the honours of the
British peerage as Lord Overstone, the only title
which has been conferred upon a prince of the mer-
cantile world, with the exception of Carrington, Ash-
burton, and Belper.—Times.

" . .