The Press. — London, England, 1854-06-17 00:00:00

Illifte. JUNE 17, 1854. Quakers at a meeting. When, in his buoyant manner, he cried, " Away with this nonsense !" a hearty cheer instinctively burst forth from the Conservatives. " Nonsense," and nothing more, must a cry for the ballot be amongst s people where the highest courts of justice are open to every spectator, and where the pro- ceedings in Parliament are published every day. Like many other of the crotchets of philosophical Radicalism, " ballot" appeals to no affection, and represents nothing but the formalism of that Benthamite school which discarded national feelings, while it denied the moral utility of prescription. Mr. BRIGHT was evidently annoyed at the reception Lord PALMERSTON'S speech re ceived. In his anger he did much to strengthen the position of the Noble Viscount. Survey ing the Liberal benches, Mr. BRIGHT ex claimed, " Don't we occupy a very absurd po sition ?"—a question which was answered affirmatively by the results of the division. From the " Liberal" benches 157 members and two tellers voted for ballot, and against it there were in the majority 30 members and one teller from what is called the Ministerial side of the House. To the majority of 194 the Conservatives contributed not fewer than 164 votes, thus exceeding by seven the whole force of the Ballotists. If anything could make the position of the Government more " absurd," it would be its position of existing on sufferance, as shown on this question. It can defeat a revolutionary project only with the aid of the national and Conservative party. One Cabinet Minister de signates as " nonsense" (and he is quite right on that point) what one of his colleagues en deavours to support by algebraic improvisa tions of Candidate A. and Candidate 8., whose whereabouts baffled the coalesced intelligence of Mr. HATTER and Mr. GRENVILLE BERKELEY to discover. They had to give them up as " unknown quantities," beyond the capacity even of Coppockian calculation. We cannot but think, however, that very old articles from the London and Westminster should receive the earliest benefit from the " New Burial Act." There should be no necessity for performing funerals twice over ; and the House of Com mons ought not, in defiance of the regulations on intramural interments, to be made the mauso leum where defunct essays are again to be en tombed with all the dreary dignity that Mr. Undertaker HaNsAnn can afford to a Radical Cabinet Minister's literary remains. CASE OF THE BARON DE BODE. ON Tuesday next the case of the Baron de BODE will, we believe, be brought before the House of Commons, and we trust, now that special pleading is banished from our courts of law, it may not find professors in the Legislature. CLEMENT Baron de BODE, an English subject, was in 1791 possessed in his own right of the lordship and lands of Soultz, in Lower Alsace, in France. In the year 1793 that Property was seized and confiscated by the Revolu tionary Administration. At the close of the war the French Government paid to England several millions sterling for the purpose of compensating English subjects whose property had been confiscated. An act of Parliament was passed to carry the arrange ment into effect, and commissioners were appointed to investigate the claims preferred. The case of the Baron came before the commissioners, and, without entering into the details, it may be sufficient to say that the award went against him. not on the substan tial merits of his case, but on points of form, which it is now acknowledged were erroneously interpreted. It . , is unnecessary to follow the case through all its intricate windings for thirty years during which the Baron was asking for justice, and the law officers of the Crown were answering hint with quibbles. Having been refused a mandamus, on the ground that the money was in the hands of the Crown, the Baron applied for a petition of right, "sup plicating " her Majesty to do justice ; but those "intellectual gladiators," the law officers of the Crown, contended that the money was in the hands of the Lords of the Treasury, to be applied in a particular matter, and not in the hands of the Crown, and, therefore, a petition of right could not be granted. But this was too audacious : the Petition was endorsed "Let right be done," and it *kg done, despite the clamorous opposition of the Attorney and Solicitor Generals, so tar as the Crown THE PRESS. could accomplish it. A commission was issued to six banisters of great eminence, and a jury was em pannelled to investigate the allegations of the peti tioner, and on all points they found his statements true. Then the Attorney-General traversed all the findings, and a trial at bar was had in the Court of Queen's Bench. It lasted four days, and the verdict confirmed in every particular the previous finding under the commission. Of the money paid to England by France, after all claims—many of them only equitable, not legal— had been satisfied, a surplus exceeding 200,0001. yet remained. The value of the estate in Alsace was, in 1819, more than 350,0001. But, notwithstanding the verdicts of two juries, the judgment in the Baron's favour could not be enforced, because the act of Parliament regulating the compensation fund directed that the money should bo applied in discharge of the claims of those in whose favour the commis• sioners had decided, and that the surplus should be disposed of in such manner as the Lords of the Treasury might direct. Hence, as the commissioners wrongly rejected his claim, the Baron was left without legal redress. He is dead, but his son inherits his claims, and the question the House of Commons will have to decide will be whether England shall retain money for its own use which was handed over to it for another purpose; and whether a great nation shall justify a breach of trust by the miserable tech• nicalities of law. LODGING-HOUSES. Tin report lately issued by Captain HAY upon lodging-houses deserves all the publicity that jour nalism can give it—a duty the more acceptable to the performers because the general tenor of the docu ment is satisfactory in a high degree. The Lodging houses Act has worked well, and it has remedied a class of evils for which, except in legislative provisions, no cure existed. The occupants of the poorest class of houses had grown used to the state of things which they found there ; most bad not the power to help themselves : where the power existed the will was often wanting; nor could they rely on the forbear ance or humanity of the owners. These latter, like their tenants, had ceased to perceive the filth and in decency which surrounded them—the few reforms which they had tried to introduce were met with op position or neglect. In many cases they were them selves tenants under the control of other persons, and often their sole object was to receive as large a return as possible for a profitable but hazardous invest ment. Under such circumstances legislative intervention seemed desirable. The law, in its amended state, reaches both occupier and owner; and especially provides for the speedy removal of nuisances, whereby, if left alone, a whole neighbourhood may be poisoned. Here a defect in the act may be noted. Power is given to remove any nuisance "in or about" a lodging-house, but these words do not extend be yond the actual premises, and the necessary access thereto ; the result being, that in cases of great urgency the police find themselves powerless. There is a legal remedy, indeed, by application to the magis trate ; but the fine imposable Lis low, the process tedious, and evasion of the law easy, especially where a large pecuniary profit is involved iu the mainte nance of the abuse complained of. This applies specially to dustyards, and various kinds of unsavoury manufactures in which a considerable capital has been invested. But where the nuisance is confined to the actual lodging-house ample facilities exist for dealing with it, and herein the law, under Captain HAY'S superintendence, has worked well. Numerous instances are cited with which we do not disgust our readers. Not less than 500 nuisances have been abated since the passing of the act, and a host of medical witnesses is adduced to show the improve ment thus effected in public health and comfort. The chief difficulty seems to consist in the want of drains: in a court or alley a single obstinate pro prietor may defeat all the rest, by refusing to allow a drain to be carried through his property. Captain HAY'S concluding statement is too remarkable to be omitted. He thinks that the mere prevention of filth and indecency will not suffice: some active steps must be taken to supply respectable accommodation to the labouring class. He suggests that special in quiries should be made on this subject through the agency of the police. It ought to be ascertained how many of those who complain of the want of lodging are temperate, well-conducted people ; how far in dulgence in drink and dissipation has left them houseless ; and at what cost cleanly lodging can really be provided. The model lodging-houses, ex cellent in their way, are too dear : they assist artisans in regular employ, but not labourers, who are often out of work, and who cannot afford to pay, at the outside, more than Is. or is. M. weekly for rent. It is reckoned that 80,000 persons live in 4,717 lodging houses, of which 0n1y11,441 are permanently regis- 555 tered, while the remaining 3,270 remain still under the observation of the police, requiring improve ment before they can be brought within the regula tions. THE NEWSPAPER STAMP. (From a Correspondent.) Wn have received many communications—some in the shape of pamphlets, others in that of notices from our contemporaries of all opinions—on the sub ject of the stamp duty. None of these, we confess, have shaken our faith in the justice of the views lately set forth in the PaEss. Indeed, the majority tend greatly to confirm them, by the exclusive per tinacity with which the writers harp on objections long ago anticipated, and on arguments wholly beside the matter in hand. What must be the case of those who support the tax, when one respectable journalist gravely assures us d the number of newspapers is not susceptible of increase, owing to the impossibility of obtaining paper in sufficient quantities ; and, "therefore,"—for the argument is as remarkable as the discovery on which it rests,—that an arbitrary fiscal limitation of the price at which newspapers may be published is no injustice, but, on the whole, a convenient arrangement? Another writer more plausibly ccntends that, though a certain injustice is done by taxing journals which do not use the Post-office for the benefit of those which do, yet that, striking a balance, the public is more benefited by the power of multiplied gratuitous transmissions than individuals are in jured by the inequality of the tax. The morality of the argument here employed we shall not stop to scrutinise. It is a curious principle in legislation, and not a safe one, to say that one person may be a little wronged in order that another may be greatly advantaged. But in truth the two things here jumbled together—the compulsory imposition of the stamp upon all journals, and the free transmission of journals once stamped—have no necessary connec tion. It cannot, we think, be argued as a matter of RIGHT that whereas a letter weighing half an ounce can only be sent through the post once for a penny, a newspaper, weighing considerably more, shall be transmitted six or seven times for that same sum. If, in consideration of the public convenience, and of the value of the press as an educational instrument, Parliament chooses to continue to us this privilege, we accept it with thanks, and we believe the conces sion to be a wise one. But we cannot shut our eyes to the fact that it is a concession—a privilege, a boon, call it what you will—not a mercantile transac tion between individuals and the Government, in which a certain sum is paid as equivalent for service rendered. For this privilege we are thankful ; but let it not be made an excuse for taxing unfairly those journals which, by the local character of their circu lation, do not require it, while they sutler far more than we do from the penny tax. Justice first ; con venience or generosity afterwards. Relieve the newspaper which is not posted from the postal charge, and then consider the propriety of charging, or of leaving uncharged, the conveyance of journals which have already passed once through the post. A third objection is raised, which seems so futile that nothing except its appearance in a Times lead ing article would justify our noticing it in reply. It is to the effect that the "manufacture " (we quote the phrase) of newspapers is of necessity carried on chiefly in London, because of the advantages which a central position gives for the collection of news. Consequently, so runs the argument, a tax which in creases this tendency to centralisation cannot be un just. Now, we deny both the premises and the con clusion herein contained. It is true that London is, and must always continue to be, the centre and focus of political information. But politics do not consti tute the whole range of subjects with which jour nalism is conversant, though political partisans are very apt to think so. Local news, local controver• sies, local advertisements, are interesting to astral and provincial residents. These, of course, find no place in metropolitan organs. A farmer in an agri cultural district who wants to sell his stock does not think of advertising in the Times. Why should he go to the expense of telling the whole civilised world that which it only concerns him that his neighbours within twenty-five miles round should know ? What he wants is a local organ, and this is exactly what the Legislature tries to prevent him from having ; it would be difficult to say on what ground. We dis• pute, therefore, the sweeping assertion of the Times, "that newspapers can only be produced profitably in London or the great towns." But, even were we to concede the fact, what does it prove? That because the competition is unequal, therefore the weight of taxation should be thrown on the weaker competitor ? Strange justice ! It may be doubtful political economy, but it is at least intelligible to say "coun try journals cannot compete with those of the towns, therefore we will impose upon them a proportionally ,fighter load of taxation." But for a directly con- ~..