The Press. — London, England, 1855-05-12 00:00:00

MAY 12, 1855. Vrourbings arlinunt. VIENNA CONFERENCES. Earl GREY, on Thursday evening, gave the fol low•ing notice for Monday, the 21st inst. : That an humble address be presented to her Majesty, to thank her Majesty fur having ordered the protocols of the recent negotiations at Vienna to be laid before us ; to inform her Majesty that this house deeply deplores the failure of the attempt to put an end, by these negotiations, to the calamities of the war in which the country is now engaged ; and to express our opinion that the proposals of Russia were such us to afford a fair prospect of concluding a peace by which all the original objects of the war might have been gained, and by which her Majesty and her allies might have obtained all the advantages which can reason ably be demanded from Russia. (Hair.) CONSULAR ESTABLISHMENTS. The committee of ways and means on Monday brought on a debate on this subject, in which Mr. WISE oomplained at some length of our whole consular system. The cost of that department had risen in five years from 148,000/. to 157,000/. Our consuls were now permitted to trade, and from their position obtained undue advantages over other merchants. Our consular expenses in the Levant were enormous, far greater than those in the United States and France, while our trade was much less. He complained of the system of paying consuls in part by fees, and thought we should do better by paying them good salaries, and ordering the fees to go to a fund as in the case of fees in our courts of law. He alleged that Christians in the Levant pur chased, by gratuities to the consuls, the right to post up the English arms, by which they were enabled to avoid the capitation tax. He read a letter from a Neapolitan now in England, which complained that while England compelled the Turks to reform their abuses, it left its own in the same country untouched. Lord PALMERSTON replied by deprecating asser tions made on no definite grounds. The high pay to our consuls in the Levant was due to their assumption of judicial functions, not necessary in States with more regular governments. The number of consuls do not depend on our imports and exports; we must have one at each port with which we traded. The increase of our trade had caused the increase in our consular establishments. The fees paid to the consuls were only in accordance with their expenses; most of them were from notarial acts, which required a proportionate staff of clerks. As for the trading of consuls, it was only permitted under the direct sanction of the Secretary of State, and always prohibited when the consuls had political duties to perform. If they were not permitted to trade, they would, of course, expect higher salaries. THE INDIAN ARMY. Sir E. PERRY, having at length obtained from Lord Palmerston a " night " on which to bring for ward the motion that had stood for many weeks on the notice-paper of the Commons, proposed the fol lowing resolution : That a select committee be appointed to consider and inquire how the army of India may be madelmostjarailable for the war in Europe, and to inquire into the steps ueces• sary to be taken if it should be deem d expedient to consti tute the army of the East India Company a royal army. In the Indian army, Sir Erskine remarked, the Government would find almost unlimited resources and recruits of the best quality and of long-proved efficiency. It comprised 460,000 men and 12,000 officers, from among whom a large body of the best trained troops could be added to the military arma ments of the country. Admitting that some useful advances had lately been made in the direction he pointed out, especially by the memorandum recently issued by the War-office, he contended that much more should be done than simply assigning an honorary rank to the Company's officers. He wished to see a complete incorporation between the two ser vices, so that military talent, wherever exercised and developed, might be rendered available in the time of rued in several parts of the world. The motion was seconded by Sir DE LACY EVANS, and opposed by Sir J. FITZGERALD and Colonel DUNNE. Sir J. W. How) insisted upon the practical difficul ties that would attend the transfer of allegiance among the mass of Indian officers and soldiers from the Company to the Crown. He doubted whether any great number of men could be spared from necessary duty in India, and apprehended that if Company's officers were admitted to the Queen's service, the account would be balanced by appointing Queen's officers to high posts in India. Believing that the consequences would occasion a se►ious dis paragement to the power and dignity of the Board of Directors, he expressed his intention strenuously to oppose the motion. sir D. L. EvAss, in supporting the motion, en larged upon the loss which the country sustained by the inability to employ a large number of experienced and talented officers, merely through technical hin- - - - THY PRESS. drances. To the Indian army itself he contended the change now proposed would prove beneficial, by placing it under the command of royal officers. Mr. V. SMITH examined the consequences that would follow any attempt to amalgamate the Indian and the royal services, deducing the conclusion that it must result in considerable confusion and mutual disadvantage. With respect to the rank of the officers, he urged that the recent memorandum had more than a nominal effect, and would facilitate the employment of Indian officers for the general service of the country in the Crimea or elsewhere. The question altogether, he considered, was unfit for reference to a select committee. Mr. OTWAY spoke in favour of the motion, and Mr. J. G. PHILLIMOBE against it. Mr. DANBY SEYMOUR, also opposing the resolution, contended that it was unwise to disturb the arrangements made for the ad ministration of Indian affairs only two years since. Mr. John M'Gregor having spoken and Sir E. I'erry replied, a division took place, in which the reso lution was negatived by 171 to 02-109. NEWSPAPER STAMP BILL. The third reading of this bill produced a desultory discussion on Monday night in the Commons. It began by a complaint from Mr. HADFIELD that the limitation of the right of transmission by post to fifteen days would have an injurious effect on news• paper property. The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHE QUER, with his usual compliance, said that he was quite willing to extend the privilege to thirty days. Mr. BRIGHT rose to protest against this extension, and added objections to the present mode of stamp ing newspapers, which could only be stamped in the four towns of Edinburgh, Dublin, Manchester, and London. He would support the abolition of the stamp altogether, and let newspapers pay for postage on the same principle as letters. Mr. CAYLEY said that this was all very well for the towns, where people clubbed together, and a single newspaper served twenty or thirty people ; but in the country a paper, after having bee❑ read by one subscriber, was sent to another three or four miles off, and so on for ten days or more, before it reached all the subsc ibers. The bill was not a just one, and he should oppose its passing. Mr. EWART replied to this by arguing that it was better for newspapers to spring up naturally in their own district than to prop up their circulation by arti ficial assistance. After some further conversation, Mr. WHITESIDE complained of the alterations which had appeared, disappeared, and reappeared, until no one knew what the bill really was. The Chancellor of the Ex chequer had endeavoured to introduce a copyright clause, showing his own consciousness of the danger in which the bill would place existing interests. That attempt had failed, and now the right hon. gentleman asked them to pass a bill of which he had himself virtually acknowledged the danger and in justice. He complained of the injustice of limiting the size of newspapers to be carried by post. It had Leen said that the limitation would only affect ad• yertisement sheets, which were handsomely paid for, but the oversize of the advertisement part of the paper was really owing to the news, but for the ex tent of which the advertisements could easily be compressed within the prescribed limits. He con tended that the mere addition of weight would not add to the expense of the Post-office, and asked on what reason the arbitrary distinction between four ounces and six ounces was founded. The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER said that his proposed copyright clause was intended to calm the apprehensions of other people as to the effects of piratical newspapers on the legitimate press. He himself had but small share in those apprehenslons. As to the proposal to allow the weight of six ounces to go free by post for the penny, it would have the effect that up to six ounces newspapers would be charged by weight, and beyond six ounces by their superficial measure. I'ublications, too, issued at more than seven days' interval would be charged by their superficial inches. He pointed out the confu sion that would arise in consequence. As for the argument that increased weight would give no more trouble to the Post-office, why should they charge a letter of one ounce double one of two ounces ? At this stage of the debate Lord Palmerston called attention to the evident inoisposition of the Speaker, and suggested that the house should get into committee business as soon as possible. The debate was immediately adjourned to Friday, Mr. Disraeli concurring in the suggestion. MARRIAGE WITH A DECEASED WIFE'S SISTER. The adjourned debate was resumed on Wednesday by Sir W. HEATHcoTE, who contended that the sup porters of the bill were bound to produce strong evidence in its favour, as it was opposed to the prac tice of Christianity from the earliest, ages. He denied that at any time the English law had shown any hesitation in the matter. Lord Lyndhurst's act may have got rid of facilities for the evasion of the law, but on the point of law itself there had been no doubt. If the present law was to be abrogated because it was broken, we should have to abrogate our laws against bigamy and adultery on such a principle. Even in countries where such marriages were permitted by dispensation, a perpetual protest was kept up against th e m. He maintained that their prohibition was no religious grievance, but Ives involved in the ordinary consideration how far indi vidual freedom of action was to yield to the general sense of the country. If they followed the example of continental nations, and broke through the table of prohibitions which they now observed, had they made up their mind where they were to take their stand ? He then argued at some length from Leviticus that such marriages were virtually and morally forbidden by the law of God. Mr. PRIER said that the present law was the result of a surprise, and that its supporters were therefore bound to show good cause for its main tenance. No restriction should be imposed on natural liberty without a strong reason, and he con tended that in the present case there was no such reason. The Divine prohibition could not be proved, and the social propriety of forbidding such marriages was doubtful. After a reference to the interpreta• tion of the scriptural texts, he argued that marriage, by a solemn act of the Legislature, was now made a civil contract. The people wets not bound by the practice of any particular Church; they were suffer ing under a grievance which affected the lower classes equally with the upper. The majority of the Dissenters was eager for its removal. The Estab lished Church was equally divided, and he trusted the measure would be passed by a large majority. Mr. It. PALMER said that the law did not rest on Lord Lyndhurst's or any other act ; its true origin was in a solemn determination of all Christendom, based on a general and comprehensive interpretation of Scripture. He cited at great length the canons and the ecclesiastical jurists, to show how universally such marriages were condemned by the highest authorities of the ecclesiastical law. There was great laxity in the practice of the Continent as to many marriages within the prohibited degree, but that laxity was accompanied with a distinct recognition of the fact that they were unlawful marriages. If the universality of public feeling against the mar riages in question could not be proved, no more could it be proved against polygamy, in favour of which, at the present moment, the Mormons were putting forth very plausible documents. lie denied that in the actual state of things individual liberty was in any way interfered with, while by its altera tion the comfort of many thousand homes would be seriously interfered with. Mr. LOWE thought that the question of polygamy was one that had much better be let alone. He deprecated placing the question on theological grounds; it should rely on the instinctive sense of right and wrong of mankind. The house had no right to raise their own personal convictions into a standard, and to prevent other people from following that line of conduct which was in their own opinion lawful and desirable. That house was no conclave fur the settlement of ecclesiastical disputes; they were there to legislate for this country, and no pro hibition law should be enacted unless it was based on the moral obligations of men and demanded by a sense of right in the human conscience. Against the argument from the frequent violation of the present law it was urged that all laws were violated, but it was in most cases with the consciousness of guilt, but in this case with the full approbation of their own conscience. He therefore urged the removal of a yoke which prevented men from follow ing what they believed to be the dictation of the Word of God and their own sense of right. Mr. GLADSTONE said that if it was dangerous to meet the question of polygamy, it was equally dan gerous to meet that before them. He denied that the Divine prohibition was in any way doubtful. When it was urged that this was a matter of con science, was the conscience meant of individuals, or the collective conscience of all mankind? If of indi viduals, why legislate at all on matters ecclesiastical ? He contended, from historical proofs, that the law as it stood was the general and universal voice of Chris tendom. Private opinion might call the law in question, but only as it called in question other laws regarded as sacred by Christians. This was called a question of religious liberty, but on this principle every ordinance of the Church of England might be modified or done away. He then recounted the many analogous changes in the law which would, to be consistent, follow the present. This last was one of many permissions which ought on the same princi ple to be granted, and he said that he had a right to ask how far it was intended to proceed. He pointed out the mass of difficulties that would arise from thus disturbing principles so long settled. It was a retrograde movement to go back from Christianity to conscience, and he believed that the proposed mea sure would be pernicious to those results which the Christian religion had brought out for mankind. Mr. SPOONER said that if be were asked how far he intended to go, he should answer, as far as the Bible