The Press. — London, England, 1854-07-15 00:00:00

I JULY 15, 1854. might be under discussion. (Hear.) If they thought it was a question which related to the transaction of public business merely, they thought it their duty either to abstain from opposition or to give the Government their support. The right hon. gentleman seems to think that no such duty is incumbent on him. He seems to consider these questions, in which the great interests of the country are involved, as a game in which it is perfectly competent for him to embarrass us when he can—to utter sarcasms— to coin. down with taunts, and not to consider at all what important consequences may follow. If the right lion. gentleman can find that his party will go with him on great questions, let him make a vote of confidence or no confidence upon any question upon which the Government must take its stand. Let hint take that' course—let him act as his predecessors h tee dime. But if there is a ques tion on which Ito or nib really are nut bound by any principle to oppose the Government—if, on the contrary, it is a motion adverse to their principles, let them act with that regard to character and integrity of conduct which has distinguished them as a party." Mr. Scumx and Mr. .11Liotnas having spoken at considerable length, Mr. DISRAELI disclaimed all intention of seeking to put the Government into a minority, since the princi pal duty of the Opposition at present was to try to prevent the Government from being beaten every night. The noble lord had desired that the confi deuce of the house should be tested on some great question, but he (Mr. Disraeli) would like to know on what question of importance the Government had not already been put into minorities. He remarked that nothing could be more unconstitutional than that power should be in the possession of those who could not command majorities to pass their bills. The course, under similar circumstances, had been to require some leading independent member who supported Government to bring the question of confidence to &formal issue, and this was the course which he called on Lord J. Russell to adopt " Tf the noble lord wished to have the opinion of the house taken as to whether or no the House of Commons had confidence in his Government. the course sanctioned by precedent was, that he should ask one of his own sup porters to introduce a motion on the subject. Had he (Mr. Disraeli) been anxious to ascertain the fact himself, he would not have hesitated to put the question to the test, but he had no desire to disturb a Government which he admired for its power of sufferance, and which he was willing, as a member of a grateful community, to do justice to for its patriotism. ( Laughter.) When the present Coalition Government was formed he was asked how long it would last, and he replied, until the political reputation of every member of it, as a public man, was irretrievably injured. (Laughter.)" After this speech from Mr. Disraeli the subject dropped. A debate running upon parallel topics was carried on in the upper house upon the same evening. The Earl of MALMESBURY vindicated Mr. Napier, and censured the Irish Secretary. The Duke of NEW CASTLE defended Sir J. Young and the Government generally. Many other peers spoke, and the dis cussion lasted for some considerable time, but pre sented no distinctive features from the Commons' debate, and, like it, led to no legislative result. COUNT PAHLEN. Earl GRANVILLE on Thursday entered into some explanations touching the civilities he had shown to a Russian subject, Count Pahlen, who was now in London, and whom he had been accused of having introduced into English society, and one of the London clubs. The count, he said, was well known for his high character, his accomplishments, and his partiality for this country, and arrived here, not from Russia, nor from the Continent, but from Madeira; and not on any diplomatic mission, but for the pur pose of arranging some pecuniary affairs, and of taking leave of hi s triends before finally separating from them. Count Pahlen was the intimate friend of his (Lord Granville's) late father, of the Duke of Wellington, of Lord Grey, and of many other distin guished men. On his arrival he invited him to his house, and signed the printed form at the Traveller-', on the receipt o f w hi c h it was usual to admit foreigners. He entirely denied that it was not justi fiable according to the law of nations for an English man to treat with civility and kindness the subjects of a foreign power, even when we were at war with that power ; and contended that such conduct was much more likely to strengthen than to weaken our hands in the conduct of hostilities. He did not be live that such conduct was illegal or unpatriotic; on the contrary , he thought it was just one of those mitigations in the old barbarous rights of war which modern civilisation had introduced. The Earl of Malmesbury, the Marquis of Lans downe, Lord Strangford, Lord Brougham, the Earl of Carlisle, Lord Campbell, and the Earl of Elles mere all spoke highly of the eminent character of Count Pahlen, from long personal knowledge, and testified their approbation of the courtesy shown to a stranger so universally respected by Lord Gran ville. The Earl of ABERDEEN assured the house that Count Pahlen had not been entrusted with any secret mission to himself, adding that, until the affairs became bruited about, be was not even aware of his Mama) in London. THE PRESS. ' BRIBERY AT ELECTIONS. Three bills introduced for the purpose of restrain ing bribery and corruption and undue influence at elections were laid before the House of Commons at au early period of the session by Lord John Russell, Sir F. Kelly, and Mr. Walpole. After undergoing much discussion, all the bills were passed through the second reading, and then referred to a select committee for the consideration and rectification of their details. From this committee a single bill came back, of which Lord John Russell has taken charge, and on Monday the noble lord reintroduced the measure to the House of Commons when it appeared in a state of ripeness for committal. The house having accordingly resolved itself into committee, Lord JOHN briefly stated that the bill came again before them after having undergone mature deliberation and received many amendments at the hands of the select committee, who had added to it several clauses from the hills proposed by Sir F. Kelly and Mr. Walpole. New clauses had also been introduced with respect to election officers. All these provisions were of much importance, and he hoped they would be adopted. The noble lord further stated that he did not intend to proceed further with the Controverted Elections Bill this session. The house proceeded to consider the clauses of the measure. A variety of verbal amendments were adopted, and several changes of much importance proposed and discussed during a miscellaneous debate of several hours' duration. Some of these amendments were pressed to a division, the promoters of the bill obtaining the support of large majorities. Much time was expended in selecting and adjusting the terms by which " bribery, " treating," " agency," and " undue influence," were to be defined for the purposes of the act. On the 2nd clause, defining active bribery, i.e., in the candidates or their agents, and enacting that every person who shall, directly or indirectly, by himself, or by any other person on his behalf, give, lend, offer, promise, &c., money or valuable consideration for a vote, shall be deemed guilty of bribery, Mr. AomoNsx moved to insert after " person " the word " authorised; " but the motion was negatived by 141 to 110. On the next clause, defining bribery in the recipients, and which enacted that every voter who shall, directly or indirectly, ask for, receive, agree, or contract for, any money or valuable consideration, for voting or refraining from voting, shall be deemed guilty of bribery, Lord J. RUSSELL consented to omit the wcrds " ask for." Lord R. GROSVZNOR gave notice that at a future stage he should move an amendment to this clause rendering it illegal fur any candidate to pay the expense of conveyance of voters to the polling places. Clause 4, which defined the offence of " treating," furnished ground for a prolonged discussion. • Mr. B. DENISON asked whether under this clause it would be illegal to issue refreshment tickets to voters who had come from a distance after an election. . The ATTORNEY•GENERAL replied in the affirmative. His answer led to many remarks upon the hardship to which it might lead in respect to county voters on the one hand, and the necessity for putting down this, the most easy and convenient form of bribery, on the other. Sir J. PLXINOTON moved the omission of these words from the clause, "in order to be elected, or for being elected," contending that their effect would be to render any gentleman who gave a private dinner in his own house to his own agents liable to a penalty of 501., at the instance of any person who chose to sue for it, though he had no corrupt purpose whatever. After a lengthened conversation, the Attorney-General consented to an alteration to the effect that this sort of treating must be given corruptly; and on this change Sir J. Pakington withdrew his motion, and the clause was passed. The sth clause related to "undue influence." Mr. MALINS insisted upon the necessity of providing against denunciations by Roman Catholic priests from the altar, and moved that the words " temporal or spiritual " should be inserted in it, with a view to guard against such practices. The committee thereupon divided For the motion 26, against 125: majority 99. The motion was consequently lost. Mr. V. SMITH afterwards moved that any vote given under circumstances of undue influence should be utterly void. Lord J. RussErs. could not assent to the addition; and the committee having divided the amendment was negatived by a majority of 132 to 63-69. Clause 10 (one of the new clauses), which declared that a person being an elector, acting as counsel, attorney, or in any other capacity, for any candidate, for the purposes of any election, should not be entitled to any reward for personal services rendered to such candidate in any such capacity, and any elector taking such illegal payment should be incapacitated from voting at such election, was opposed by Mr. E. Denison, Mr. H. T. Liddell, and Mr. Athertim. Lord J. RUSSELL thought the clause, as it stood, was impracticable, and proposed to substitute another clause hereafter. The clause was accordingly with• drawn. 653 On clause 14, which states that any court before which prosecution should be ordered for any offence against the act might order payment of costs and expenses to the pro secution, . _ Mr. HENLEY asked what fund was to pay the costs of such prosecutions—the Consolidated Fund or the county rates' Lord J. itussELT. said they would be paid out of the Consolidated Fund. The clause was agreed to. The further progress of the measure was then suspended until last (Friday) night. introduced London cli for his hig partiality f Russia, no and not on pose of a taking lea , from them of his (Loi Wellingtoi guished n] house, and on the r( foreigners sable acco man to tre of a foreig that powe much mor hands in t live that s the contra mitigation modern ci The Et dowse, Lc of Carlist mere all t Count Pa testified ti a strange] ville. The E Count Pi secret mitt became b Waimea i MATRIMONIAL DIVORCE BILL. This bill stood for committal in the Lords on Mon day, when the LORD CHANCELLOR, observing that the Testamentary Jurisdiction Bill had been rejected by the House of Commons, declared his intention, ar rived at with much regret, to omit the eleven first clauses out of the Divorce Bill. Lord CAMPBELL declared that he preferred seeing this bill also abandoned altogether, and added some inquiries touching the cause of the new instance of Ministerial failure which occurred in relation to the Testamentary Jurisdiction Bill. The Bishop of Oicsoan also counselled the post ponement of the Divorce Bill until another session. Similar advice was given by Lord REDESDALE, who had proposed an amendment of much importance in the clauses relating to divorces a vinculo matrimonii, by which divorced persons would have been prohibi ted from marrying again. Thus urged, and notwithstanding the assurances given in both houses a few days previously, the LORD CHANCELLOR consented to withdraw his motion, and the Divorce Bill was added to the many other derelict measures of the session. THE SCREW-PROPELLER AND CAPTAIN CARPENTER. Lord LYNDHURST (on Monday, in the House of Lords) entered into a lengthened statement respecting the claims of Captain Carpenter on the Admiralty, on account of his invention of a screw-propeller for the navy. A sum of 20,0001. had been appropriated by the Admiralty, about two years since, on account of compensation for the patentees of the screw-pro. peller, and the result was that the money to which Captain Carpenter was entitled was handed over to other parties, and since that period he had been sent back from one department to another, and bad been totally unable to obtain redress. The noble and learned lord moved for the production of the papers and correspondence. The Earl of ABERDEEN stated that the Admi. ralty had acted upon the best legal advice, sad upon the highest authority they could obtain, in refusing to pay any other claim, after the payment of two sums of 10,(X)0/. each, viewing it as a purely patent question, and leaving the parties to find a remedy at law. The Earl of HARDWICKE warmly expressed his conviction that Captain Carpenter had received great injustice from the present Board of Admiralty The papers moved for by Lord Lyndhurst were ordered to be laid on the table. THE NEW ZEALAND BISHOPRIC. The Bishop of LONDON on Monday interrogated Government as to the circumstances under which the grant of 6001. heretofore voted for the Bishop of New Zealand had been this year withdrawn from the estimates. Hil,hly eulogising the great energy and disinterestedness of the prelate in question, he ex pressed strong hopes that, considering what had passed in the House of Commons, and the state ments there made by Sir J. Pakington, the Govern ment would find means of redressing the injustice done to so excellent a man. The Duke of NEWCASTLE heartily concurred in ap preciating the worth and services of the Bishop of New Zealand; but he held out no prospect of any restoration of the omitted vote on his account:— " The circumstances which led to the withdrawal of the vote were principally these, and, though unfortunately the bishop himself was not apprised of the discontinuance of the vote until a few days ago, still her Majesty's Govern ment had not been wanting in that courtesy and respect so eminently required by the occasion. For many years the parliamentary estimates on account of the colony were very large, caused in a great measure by the disastrous cir cumstances accompanying the colonisation of the islands of New Zealand. In the year 1862, Sir John }'akington being then Secretary of State for the Colonial Department, an estimate for 10,0001. on account of the islands was pre sented, including a salary of 6001. for the bishop. But to that estimate was appended a note, founded upon informa tion contained in despatches forwarded by the colonial au thorities, to the effect that in the next year the estimates would be reduced to 6,0001.; and that in 1e54 all demands on the home Government would entirely cease. In ac cordance, therefore,with that intimation,the vote proposed in the House of Commons last year was but for 5,0001.; while no estimate whatever was sent in for the present year. Such were the circumstances under which the vote on account of the bishop's salary had disappeared from the estimates. Now, he was not at all prepared to say that if circumstances had remained in the position in which they stood twelve months ago he would have been disinclined to reconsider the minute of Sir J. Pakingtou, and to !wi elder whether it would not be right to ask for a contina•