The Press. — London, England, 1857-07-04 00:00:00

throwing of the Thames open to the park. If, however, these offices were built where the Govern went proposed, they would " cut off everything from everything for ever" : The Parks would never reach the waterside, the new National Gallery would be intercepted from the Houses of Parliament, the public offices would be crowded in, and the proposed quay of the Thames would be deprived of what would be its noblest embellishment. Hon. members should remember that this was an opportunity which, once neglected, would never again present itself. It was a question of di> architectural future of London—whether our parks should be made the marvel of the world, the most magnificent specimens of landscape gardening ever known, or whether they should remain patchy and blotchy, cut off from the noble river which on one side might bound them. Cul bono ? Why such a sacrifice? Merely to carry out a crude plan too hastily determined upon. A little consideration, a little pause, and he was satisfied that all the good results naturally to be anticipated by the competition—which was a noble idea in itself—might be realised. Sir B. HALL stated that the judges had been unanimous in tl eir award, and that he proposed not to come to any conclusion respecting the three selected designs until the public had an opportunity of looking at them. He quite agreed with Mr. Hope that if his plans were carried out we should obtain one of the finest 'kites in Europe; but the cost would add a million and a half to the present estimates. During the recess the approved plans for a new War and Foreign Office would be carefully revised and elaborated as to their details, and the completed designs laid before the house early next session. A conversation ensued, in which various topics in connection with the subject were touched upon— including Westminster-bridge, the state of the Thames, the intolerable stench of which Mr. MANGLES represented as seriously affecting the health or steamboat passengers, and the un,ightly buildings on the Surrey side of the river. Lord ELCHO recommended the Government to buy them up, believing that, when the new bridge was built, it would prove a good speculation, to which Sir B. HALL replied that he should be very glad to know " where the purchase money was to come from." The hou,:e then went into committee of supply on the Civil Service Estimates. Lord JOHN RUSSELL, after a brief explanatory statement s moved the vote of 40,400/. for the British Museum. The vote was agreed to, as were some following votes, after a miscellaneous discussion, which chiefly occupied the remainder of the night's sitting. The vote for the Nstional Gallery underwent con siderable criticism, Mr. COSI:WHAM attacking the conduct of Sir C. Eastlake, and Lard ELCHO giving some curious details respecting the purchase of pictures for the gallery, with special reference to the Pisani Paul Veronese, for which the enormous sum of 13,0001. had been given : It appeared that a great portion of the sum paid for this picture went in payments to different persons in the service of Count Pisani, in order to induce that nobleman to sell the picture. Sa careful were the purchasers to overlook no one, that gratuities to the chambermaid and to the cook were in the list. Str C. Eats'lake, in reference to this picture, stated that it was said that when the master gave it to the ancestor of the present owner, he stated that he had given him a fortune. He little thought how truly he spoke. In truth, however, the fortune came not from the painter, but from the British nation. While upon the subject of this picture, he would mention that he had been informed that the count had another copy of this very picture at a villa cf his, the Villa d'Este, of the existence of which he had been unaware until the transaction was completed. Whether that picture at the villa was the original, and our purchase a copy, he was not aware. Two divisions were taken. One on a motion by Lord ELCHO reducing the grant to the same amount as last year, which was negatived by a majority of 194 to 80-105. The se , :ond amendment, retrench ing 2501. from the secretary's salary, and 350/. charged as expenses of the travelling agent, was also negatived by 161 to 123-38. Several votes having been agreed to, the Chair man was ordered to report progress. The Attorneys and Solicitors (Colonial Courts) Bill, the Summary Proceedings before Justices of the Peace Bill, and the Municipal Corporations Bill were r, ad a second time. The Constabulary Force (Ireland) Bill passed through committee. Other bills were forwarded a stage. On the motion of Mr. LABOUCHERE, a select com mittee was appointed to inquire into the expedi ency of guaranteeing by Act of Parliament the liquidation of a loan to be contracted in pursuance of an act passed by the Legislature of New Zealand, for defraying the debt of the colony to the New Zea land company, towards extinguishing the native title to lands in certain portions of the colony, and for other purposes. The house adjourned at a few minutes befora one THE PRESS, JULY 4, 1857. NOTICES OF MOTION. MONDAY. The Earl of ALBEMaRLIt that in consequence of the news from India he should pcstpone the presentation of the petition trout the King and Royal Family of Owls, which he had intended to present on Friday. THURSDAY. Mr. Ricaano—that he should, oa the earliest opportunity, call the attention of the house to the subject of granting a drawback of duty on paper in the pottery manufacture, as in the case of the Jacquard loom cards. THE SLIGO ELECTION. (From our own Correspondent.) DUBLIN, Thursday Evening. THE Four Courts have been all life and bustle this week with the case of the Mayor of Sligo and his audacious corruption. It appears that this worthy made a resolve at the last election that a Liberal candidate should be returned at all costs and by all means. He accordingly appointed deputies and poll clerks whom he could command, whose con sciences were ductile, and whose memories were inaccurate, to carry out his design. Mr. Ball, late Under-Secretary for the Colonies, retired on the Sunday night before the nomination, because he dis• covered that he could only obtain success by the disreputable artifices which he saw were being pre pared. Forthwith appears Mr. J. P. Somers, and in him the mayor did not find the scruples which abashed Mr. Ball. A large dinner party was given that night at his house, at which Mr. Somers was present, his precious deputies, poll clerks, and town clerk, and all the leading politicians on that side. At this dinner, as the mayor simply observed in cross examination during the trial, "we all agreed to have Mr. Somers as our candidate "! The mayor corn• menced his strange course by proposing as an assessor a man, personally hostile to Mr. Wynne, and notoriously friendly to Mr. Somers. This was naturally opposed by Mr. Wynne's agent, who said that except Mr. Preston, the individual aforesaid, any gentlemen at the Irish Bar would be acceptable to him, and he included Mr. Harkyn, a private friend of the mayor, and a gentleman of undoubted in tegrity. The mayor, however, was pertinacious in insisting upon nominating Mr. Preston, and when he found this would not do, he refused to have an assessor at all. The way in which the thing was to be done was very original and unique. The poll-clerks brought their books with all the electors' names written out in full, the law prescribing that nothing but the condi • dates' names should be written, and these were omitted altogether; so that some time after the poll opened it was found that votes were entered in the two columns, but there was no name at the head of them to show for whom they were recorded. The intention obviously was, if this had not been noticed, to leave the putting in of the candidates' names to the mayor and his confederates, and they, of course, would have known how to arrange the matter to their satisfaction and Mr. Somers. You will say this is increeible, but it is all strictly true, and has been proved, with a great deal more I am about to tell you, in a court of justice. The poll had not been open very long before it was discovered that votes tendered for Mr. NVyrne were being deliberately entered for his opponent. The mayor was appealed to. He satisfied himself with telling the poll clerk "to behave better "! This was about eleven o'clock a.m. The next mode of defeating Mr. Wynne rescrted to was the rejection of votes offered for him on the ground that they were the votes of " paid agents." It was in vain the persons so disfranchised remonstrated and expostulated. The mayor said he would hear the question argued later in the day, and the votes were ignored. It was one of the electors so treated, a Mr. Sedley, who brought the action against the mayor for wilfully, maliciously, and cor• ruptly depriving him of his franchise. Well, to proceed with this marvellous history, Mr. Wynne's agents found that the poll•clerks were at their forgery again, and reported it to the mayor. Upon this the :nob set up a shout that freedom of election was being violated. After a pause a man rushes in, by name Simpson, and asks if his vote he had tendered for Mr. Somers had been recorded correctly. Immediately a search is made, and it is said the name had beet omitted. Of course then the err .r was rectified. But will your readers believe that it came out at the trial upon inspection of the poll books that this was all sham and hypo crisy, for it so happened that the ordinsry stroke in dicating the vote was found on one side of a very black stroke, made when Simpson appeared ? so that it was proved that the mayor removed the forging poll-clerk and took to himself the credit and virtue of so doing upon a case made to suit his purpose. And even this was not done until half-past three p.m., when the voting was virtually over ! In addition to the rejection of Mr. Wynne's voters as paid agents, electors were sent back becanee they were alleged to be drunk, it being obvious they were quite sober, and thee it. turned out these drunken men, who were too intoxicated to vote for Mr. Wynne, had all voted fur Mr. Somers ! The Act of Parliament, you will know, enjoins upon the deputies the asking two questions to the elector—lst, "Are you the person described " ; 2nd, " Have you voted before? " The identity of the name is not required ; but the mayor's deputies, as soon as they knew a man came up to support Mr. Wynne, tried to find some word mis-spelt, or name mis pronounced, and summarily rejected the vote! At 4.30 p.m., half an hour before the poll closed, the mayor said to Mr. Wynne's agent he should hear no arguments as to the rejection of voters on various grounds ; he believed he had no right to interfere with the acts of his deputies (having, as he stated with a virtuous air, done this very thing in the Simpson case!), and that he was pre pared to abide by those acts. On the following morning the poll-books are brought into court, and the seals broken. Instead of the reckoning going on in open court, as the law enjoins, the mayor and his deputies, &c., retire to a private room, where in adding up 294 votes they spent more than two hours! Mr. Mostyn, agent for Mr. Wynne, happened to get into the secret chamber where they were at work; a rush was made to keep him out, not knowing who he was. As soon as this awkward discovery was made, he was apologised to and invited to come in. I need not say that with this complicated ma chinery at work the mayor triumphed at the time, the numbers being, according to his account, for Mr. Somers, 150; Mr. Wynne, 144. To whom the majority of right and truth belongs will be under stood when it is known that besides four paid agents rejected, and six or seven votes fraudulently trans- ferred from Mr. Wynne to Mr. Somers, there were three or tour actual forgeries of votes for Mr. Somers of men who never came to the booths at all! This was the object of having the names all written out, instead of their being entered as each elector pre sented himself; the forgery of an entire name, address, qualification, &c., would take time, might be observed, and would be in a handwriting which could be identified, and connected with the fraud ! The jury, as you will have anticipated, found a verdict for the plaintiff on all the issues, awarding him 1001. damages for his deprivation of the fran chise. The mayor now stands in a truly enviable position as a man of honour and honesty ! His name is M‘Gowan, and it will give Sligo an immor tal infamy in the annals of electioneering corruption. But how stands Mr. J. P. Somers, ALP. for Sligo— Lord Palmerston's bosom friend, as he boasted, who c could not only ask, but command favours Those who want to know what a Palmerstonian does when he is hard-pressed should read the account of his breaking into a man's house to compel him to vote, using him violently when he refused, and forming part of a mob who tired into the window opened by the aforesaid J. P. Somers ! Those who desire to estimate the veracity of a Palmerstonian should read a letter written to the Times some weeks since, declaring the allegations of its leader upon the Sligo election tD be utterly false and malicious (each of your contemplrary's charges being fully verified), and signed J. P. Somers ! I understand it was John Sadleir who introduced the practices at which the Mayor of Siigo has become such an adept. Mr. Whiteside and Mr. M'Donagh conducted the plaintiff's case, the defendant being represented by Mr. Fitzgibbon and Mr. 0' Hagan. I understand evidence is being manufactured in the Dublin cases at a large cost of money. There will be a great field-day for the Bar at Wexford in the important ease of " Boyse and itaSs borough." All the most eminent members of the Irish Bar are engaged. THE NUMBER OF DIVORCES (d vinculo nicarimonii) granted by Act of Parliament since the Reformation 1.317. The first granted was in 1540, the next in 1551, and none from that time to 1670. Another passed in 1890, and from 1098 to 1750 there appears to have been one passed at intervals averaging about three years. Since 1752 but eight sessions have passed without a divorce being granted, the last being that of 1818. The year in which the largest number took place was 1799 ',lO divorces) ; 1796 (9) ; 1839, 1840, and 1842 (8 each) ; 1772, 1849, 1850 (7 each) ; 1778, (6) ; and 1778, 1703, 1797, 18,35, 1841, 1843, and 1855 (5 each). Only one divorce was granted in 1852, and two each in 1817, 1851, and 1856. The number of Scotch " Decreets" of divorce during the last ten years was 174, of which 99 were at the instance of the husband, and 75 at suit of the wife. A parlirmentary paper published tins week (on the motion of Sir Erskine Perry) gives these particulars.