The Press. — London, England, 1853-07-09 00:00:00

poraty (the Leader), if that attack did not in volve an error which, on all occasions, we desire to combat as mischievous, by influencing the speculations of our writers and our statesmen on the subject of foreign polities since the disastrous year 1 S4f.t. We are accused of a want of " generosity," because we do not augur well of the Liberal cause o► the Continent—that is to say, it is made a matter of reproach that, in estimating, the present state and future prospects of Eu t•ope, we desire to take the guidance of our reason rather than of our feelings. If, indeed, we were looking down from another planet on the great drama of the world, it might be safe to treat the passing scene as the denouement of an interesting story, rather than the progress of un experiment of immense importance and fearful risk—it might be generous to prefer names to things, theories to facts, our wishes to our knot•ledge. But, closely connected its are British interests with those of continental Europe, by the pmgress of civilisation, and still store closely by the meddling policy of the Foreign-office, it is most mischievous to give the reins to our imaginations, and to in dulge our prejudices without restraint because our prejudiees are amiable. It is the first duty of all who aspire to influence public opi nion carefully to in►luire, and fearlessly to enounec, the truth, no matter how unpalatable the truth may be. In the year 184 s, when the issue was not yet tried, it might, perh►tps, be excusable, it certainly wits natural, to hear the voice of hope in preference to that of reason. But, now that the bubble has burst, that every boast has been disproved, every delusion dispelled, is it the language of sanity to urge that generosity and chivalry" oblige the statesman to deny the history of the last four years, and to discredit the evidence of his senses'? We beg to say that we do not confound in one indiscriminate censure all refor►ners, from AmuLiu to MAZZINI. 1111.1/0 pleasure in ad mitting the integrity and uprightness which distinguish the first of these names. In moral worth and honesty of purpose there was the greatest ditlerence among those who headed the reforming movement in Italy. In the un fortunate result of that movement the contidin. , and honest are unhappily confounded with the artful and dishonest, whose dupes and vie thins they have been, and with whom, against. their will and contrary to their intentions, they have co-operated in producing, first anarchy, and then, by a necessary reaction, despotism. By denying the virtues of MAzzist it seems we have shown ourselves utterly ignorant of the state of European opinion. This is strange. We only follow the authorities who are quoted with applause by our eontemporary himself'. It is from their invect►ves we leant that MAZZINI has been disowned and denounced by his bro ther agitators, who itemise him of having ruined the cause of liberty by his intrigues. But we have no wish to prolong the discussion. The real in tention of all the great agents of mischief in all ages has been a subjeet of doubt a doubt which in the present ease we have little interest in solving. If MAZZINI is insineere, he is the more eontemptil►le as a man ; if he is sincere, he is the more dangerous as a eon spi►nttor. "THE PRESS" AND "THE OBSERVER." TO THE EDITOR 01' " THE PREgB " Sir,—" A constant reader of the ()Nemo." is not easily astonished by effrontery in the way of appro priating other is‘ople's words and intelligence; hut the following ease is rather too bad. On Sunday morning. July :trd. the Obsercer gave under the usual head, " Latest Intelligence," where its special news is placed, and dated " ()inferrer Office, Sattirday night," some s'acts of the gravest import, which served the Times of Monday as the theme for its chief article on the Russo-Turkish question. Those facts were copied verbatim from the first article of your journal of July •,:nd, without acknowledgment, and deliberately appropriated as original intelligence of the (Marrow. I cannot help forwarding the para graph, to make sure that it does not escape your att?ntion.—l um, sir, our occasional reader, and obedient servant, J. B. M, July a, 1853, THE PRESS. rectOings arliamtnt. lITTSSO : TURKISII QUESTION. A motion on this subject stood on the Lords' pa per for Thursday night, when Lord llitouottsx in quired of the Government whether, in the present state of the question, all public discussion had not better he postponed? The Earl of CLARENDON admitted that in relation to " this very grave subject he certainly could not say that there would be no inconvenience nor mia chief to be apprehended kom its full discussion" : " Unfortunately 1 cannot say that negotiations have arrived at that point, or that this matter is so near a set. dement, as to render a discusaion upon the matter com paratively unimportant ; but I do say that negotiations are going on—that we most earnestly hope that there may be a peaceful solution of this question—Wear, hear )—guid I KM sine pair loldsllllis W 411114 be the last persons in the country to do anything to interfere with that settlement ( Hear, &lir.)" As, however, he had already twice asked Lord Clan ricarde, whose motion it was, for a postponement, he had made up his mind not to repeat that request, but only suggested the inconvenient consequences which it might produce, especially considering the compul sory absence, on account of illness, of Lord J. Rus sell from the other house, where also the subject was to have been mooted. The Earl of ELLENBoRouGn and the Earl of DERBY joined in deprecating any premature discussion which might embarrass the Government, or prove of disadvantage to the public service. Thus urged, the Marquis of CLANRICARDE COD sented to withdraw his motion. In the Commons, the indisposition of Lord J. Rus sell was pleaded by Mr. tit..tosToNE for a similar purpose, to which, with much apparent reluctance, Mr. LAVARD yielded, and postponed his motion until Monday, when it is positively to come on at last. SUCCESSION DUTIES BILL. The committal of the bill being resumed on Mon day, Mr. IVALeoLE in the 3:lrd clause proposed an amendment to efface its retrospective character. The clause referred to the allowance to be made in case of incumbrances, and he suggested the insertion of the words " after the passing of this act.," in order to establish a just distinction between the incumbrances created prior, and those effected subsequent to, the enactment of the present measure : " A ++ the clause stood it would seriously affeet the seen• rity of existing creditmrs mid mortgagees, where the estate might he mortgaged to the full value, and he therefore wished that the act slionhl not have a retrospective effect." The SOLIcITeR-GENERAT. and the CHANCEL on of the EXCHEQUER opposed this amendment, alleging that it interfered with the principle of the bill, and would seriously diminish its utility as a source of re • venue. The latter, after• several members had spoken, argued the question from an abstract and moral point of view : If the lion. gentleman would undertake to provide an assembly of human legislators who would SO frame human laws as in every ease to adjust their operation to the moral excellence or demerits of the transactions to which they ap plied, he would be nowt happy to hear how he would proceed. Ile contended that. Parliament could do nu suck thing : it could only proceed on broad, simple, and intelligible rules. (Hear, hear.) The clause as it stood was not only more conformable to precedent but also to justice than it would ho if amended in the manner prigsoseil. It was all very well to cite eases in which incumbrauces had been created by filial piety, but they all knew that the great bulk of these incumbrances was created by the great tendency of the higher classes to live beyond their means—(sear, hear) — and therefore, forsooth, they were to legislate with a special tenderness in favour of those classes.—(frosicai cheer.. ) If the doctrine were so correct that an allowance should be made for incumbrimees, why was it not provided that an allowance should be made for money borrowed on per• sonal security ?" Proceeding presently to It division, the committee negatived the amendment by a narrow majority. The numbers were : For the amendment Against Majority - - - Air. WALrot,E, renewing his opposition to the clause, which he characterised as essentially unjust, "•lepriving creditors of their security, and taking away from successors that to which they were justly entitled," The CHANCELTAM of the ExcliEQuEn complained of the practice of reopening questions which had been once decided by a division. In deference, however, to the appeal on behalf of successors, he added words to the clause including, among the ineumbranees to be allowed for, all moneys expended by the heirs pre %ions to their succession upon substantial repairs or permament improvements of the real property to which they succeeded. Sir J. PAKINOTON reftl‘Wki to accept this alleviation of a detail in a clause whieliwas vicious in principle. lie therefore divided) the committee on the general SATURDAY, question, - that the clause stand part of the bill." There appeared : For the clause Against Majority —l6 At the 40th clause, and midnight, the further pro. ,gress of the bill, after much resistance from Mr. ULADSTONE, who wished to go on, was adjourned. The committal of the bill being resumed on Thursday night, the last clauses passed, after a long debate, in whi c h a great many divisions were taken on amend ments in detail. Seine trifling alleviations were car ried, and several new clauses introduced—one to ex. enipt from the duty persons now beneficially entitled to real property subject to leases for life ; a second, to declare life policies and certain post-obit bonds not successions ; a third, prescribing the rule for charging the duty upon timber; and a fourth, di. rectiug how annuities should be valued. CHURCH•BUILDING BILL. The Earl of HARROWBY, on Monda, described the provisions of this bill, which stood for committal iu the House of Lords. Its object, he suid, was two fold : " First, to give facilities fur the aggregation of small livings in populous cities and towns. In the city of Lon don, fur example, there was an immense accumulation of churches, forming, no doubt, a great architectural attrac tion to the metropolis, but doing little for its spiritual wel fare. In one instance there were no fewer than tire churches to serve an area and population nut larger than that of eirosvenor-square, and several other similar cases might be named. Now, the population of the City had not only diminished, but the number of those who ft .. mained within its precincts on Sunday had decreased to an even larger extent. The truth was that the causes whieli had in ancient times caused vast populations to be pent within walls had long since ceased, and London was now fast becoming u city of shops mid warehouses. ( Hear, hear.) The question then was, whether it was not better that the churches and endowments should follow the peo ple ? (Hear, hear.) The present law gave the bishop the power to order by a faculty a church to be pulled down, aild also to unite contiguous benefices; but in the former ease the process was inconvenient, and in the latter the ne cessity fin. the benefices to be contiguous would interfere with the end in view. The first clauses of the bill proposed bi deal with this part of the subject." The second object of the bill was to provide a remedy for certain evils and disabilities now existing with regard to Church patronage. Between seven and eight hundred benefices were in the gift of the Lord Chancellor, and many more in that of various public and corporate bodies, of which a great number were of extremely insignificant value. The measure pro posed accordingly to empower the several holders so to deal with their patronage as to consolidate certain benefices, improve the revenue of others, create new parishes, and in other ways render the gross income more available for the spiritual wants of the popula. tion. The Earl of Bowls raised some objections to the bill. It was an odd way of beginning Church exten sion with an extensive destruction of churches. Who could foretel that population would never flow back even to the city of London ? Small parishes and benefices were also useful as places of retirement to clergymen when exhausted by their labours. The Bishop of LONDON stated that the bill ema nated from no private source. It was founded on the report of a commission issued for the purpose of in quiring into the means of subdividing large parishes, and making better provision for poorer benefices. Respecting the chief objections to the measure, based on the probable pulling down of consecrated edifices, the sale of their materials, conversion of their sites and adjacent burial-grounds to secular uses, d:c. he remarked that they referred entirely to matters cf feeling, which must sometimes be surrendered to public expediency. The bill was then passed through committee. REPRIEVE OF THE ECCLESIASTICAL COURTS. Leave to bring in a hill transferring the testa menta' y jurisdiction of the ecclesiastical courts to the courts of common law and county courts was on Tuesday moved for by Mr. COLLIER. He recapitulated some of the facts and arguments he had employed on a former day, when moving for a committee of inquiry into the sub ject, aud, stating that the Government had then in duced him to withdraw his motion on the promise that they would bring in a bill of their own, remarked that their failure to keep that promise, at all events for the present session, led him to proceed with the measure he had himself prepared. Describing the remedies which he proposed for abuses in the courts in question, he remarked that his present suggestions were limited to the testamentary jurisdiction. As for the evils in other departments and jurisdictions appertaining to the ecclesiastical courts, the only re medy to be devised was their total abolition : " His proposal differed from that of the Solieitor-Genersll inasmuch as the hitter designed to do away with all but the diocesan coatis. whereas he would do away with all. Hr would abolish altogether the testamentary jurirldietion of the ecclesiastical courts. He proposed that all wills about which there was so dispute should be proved in the vomit)"