The Press. — London, England, 1855-03-17 00:00:00

250 argue strongly against the repeal of the newspaper stamp duty, where the persons most interested were precisely those who dissuaded Parliament from making the sacrifice. Earl GRANVILLE said that the amount of bills asked for was not greater, with one or two exceptions, than the amount asked for in the last forty years. He believed that the objections to loans were sound — amongst them was the important one that they led to lavish expenditure. Loans injured trade, by dimi nishing available capital. The Earl of DERBY complained that no answer whatever had b"en given to the observations of the noble lord. The complaint was that a change had been made—not as to the future, but the past— without any intimation being given ; and that the late Chancellor of the Exchequer had been practically borrowing money while professing a mere arrange ment of the financ3s of the year. The answer given to this was that the noble earl did not know what the next budget would be. The amount of bills to be issued had nothing to do with the question. Mr. Gladstone had stated that he did not mean to raise money, but only to provide revenue out of revenue, while he had really anticipated the revenue, and added to the public debt. Let the Government really state whether they still adhered to the principle of providing for the services of the year out of the revenue of the year, or whether, under a great national emergency, they would take a course which all previous Governments had taken, to throw a partof the burden upon posterity, dealing with the matter as a perma nent debt, or without adding to the permanent debt, spreading it over, say, thirty or forty years. The corn plaint was that the Government had departed from their own principle, and endeavoured to conceal that departure. The Duke of ARGYLL said that the question re solved itself into a mere verbal dispute as to whether these comparatively small sums, raised on an emer gency, constituted a loan or not. The Government had laid down no general principle—Mr. Gladstone had simply said that it was unadvisable to rush into loans at the outset of a contest. The present dispute seemed to him ridiculous and trivial. Earl GREY did not think the question by any means a trivial one. It was whether Government at the beginning of a great war had fairly explained its views, and dealt with the public as it ought. It had been stated that they were to hear no more of these bills, and now thus to introduce them was not a fair way of treating Parliament. The Government had no right to draw bills at four years' date—let them state clearly what they were doing. He, however, agreed with them in one thing, that a great part of the expenses should be paid out of revenue. PROBATE DUTY. Mr. Wu.r.unts on Thursday moved the following resolution : That in the opinion of this house real property and im propriate tithes should be made to pay the same probate duty as is now payable on personal property ; and that property belonging to corporations, universities, colleges, bishoprics, and deans and chapters, should pay a duty equivalent to the probate and legacy duties levied on per sonal property. He made a long technical statement on the injustice of the actual anomalies of the probate duty, and said that his resolution would give the Government two millions and a half, which they had no excuse for neglecting at the present moment. To this the CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER replied that real property paid no probate duty, because its succession was not under the jurisdiction of the ecclesiastical courts, and that to make them pay pro bate would be to alter our entire system. His pre decessor had carefully considered the subject in his succession bill, and he could not consent to disturb the arrangement. As to the latter part of the reso lution it was a subject of great importance, and he should be not disinclined at a future period to intro duce a bill for its regulation. After a discussion of little importance, in which the claims of the landed interest were ably defended by Mr. Peacocke and Sir J. Strickland, the motion was negatived by 84 to 81. SUCCESSION TO REAL PROPERTY. Mr. LOCKE KING on Thursday moved for leave to introduce a bill for amending the law on this subject. He proposed simply to apply to real property the law of succession which applied not only to personal property but to leasehold property of every descrip tion, even for periods which made it equivalent to freehold, and by which the property of persons dying intestate was equally divided among all the children. He read several cases of the hardship of the present state of things. The motion having been seconded by Mr. MASSEY, The SOLICITOR•GENERAL argued that the altera tion of the law of primogeniture would strike at the root of all our social institutions. Besides this, it would affect the many arrangements and settlements made under the existing law, for the law of primo genituro filled the professions with able and Indus- THE PRESS. trions younger brothers, who had had large sums spent on fitting them out, and to share in the estate would be gross injustice to the elder brothers. ➢ir. EWAItT contended that the proposed bill was in accordance with the spirit of the age, and unless this spirit was provided against more violent innova tions would ensue, The house rejected the bill by 150 to 84. MARRIAGE WITH A DECEASED WIFE'S SISTER. This subject came before the Commons on Tues day, in a debate which turned on the interpretation of a verse in the Bible, and the theological con sideration as to whether it applied to Christians. Mr. HEYWOOD introduced it, asking for leave to bring in a bill to abolish the prohibitory act of 1835. He commenced by saying that in 1852 685 widowers had married their deceased wives' sisters. The law only pressed upon the poor; the rich evaded it by going abroad, where the law did not exist, and there marrying. The law was especially tyrannical to certain classes of dissenters and Jews, and was opposed to the sentiments of a large number of the clergy of the Establishment. He quoted Sir W. Jones and others against the interpretation of the verse in Leviticus, which is supposed to prohibit such marriages. Sir F. THESIGER said that the women of England were opposed to any alteration in the law. He then entered at large into the scriptural argument, with some allusion to hi.torical instances. Mr. BOWYER said that these marriages were not void at common law, but only in the ecclesiastical courts. He considered the Legislature wrong in placing any obstacle in the way of marriage except when there was a clear violation of morality. Mr. E. Ems, argued upon the interpretation on the text of Leviticus, contending that it did not mean a prohibition. Mr. M. MIr.NE said that the law had not arrested these marriages, which had rather increased. The most painful consequence would follow on the suc cession of property if the Legislature refused to alter the law. It was a matter to the middle classes of life and death, and to be considered as a pressing practical matter, and not in an archaeological light. Mr. It. PHILLIMORE opposed the bill, which he said would disturb the relations of families, and in flict great injustice on those who had kept the law. Mr. SPOONER supported the alteration believing the present law to have a most demoralising effect on the lower classes. These marriages were cele brated, the couple quarrelled, and the man turned his wife out of doors, dishonoured and without a home. Mr. H. DRUMMOND said that while they were about it " you had better abolish all the prohibited degrees and marry your grandmother like a man." Lord PALMERSTON said that he should vote in favour of the motion. Parliament itself had decided against the abstract principle that these marriages were repugnant to the law of God. The moral feeling at large was not in unison with the law, it was constantly violated, and great social evils thus existed. Mr. WALPOLE protested against the consequences of such a line of argument. He deprecated the agitation of the question as most injurious ; it destroyed the familiarity of domestic relations, was admitted to be contrary to the feelings of Ireland, of Scotland, and, he believed, of a majority of this country. He argued that the unmarried aunt would be fur every reason a better guardian of the children of her late sister than the married one. Mr. MooRE declared that Roman Catholics looked upon the proposal with horror. Mr. COBDEN pointed to the fact that a man in society might go to Germany, marry his deceased wife's sister, and return home without losing caste, as an evidence of the general feeling on the subject. The motion was carried by 87 to 53. HOURS OF LABOUR IN FACTORIES. Mr. COBBETT on Thursday attempted to introduce a measure to make the existing law on this subject more strict. He wished to put a stop to the " shift " system, by which the workpeople, though not actually working more than ten hours, were kept from their homes. He proposed to restrict the working of the engines to twelve hours. Sir G. GREY said that the former bill was founded on a compromise between masters and workmen after long consideration; that its provisions were satisfac torily observed, and that all interference, excepting the house was prepared to adopt a new principle altogether, was very mischievous. There was but little of importance in the debate which followed. Mr. BRIGHT said that for so small a difference it was injudicious to reopen the question, and Lord PALMERSTON denied that the present law was evaded as stated by the hdn. move; excepting upon rare occasions. Mr. W. J. Fox, Mr. Newdegate, and Mr. E. Ball complained of the inattention tho house to the SATURDAY, working classes ; but their complaints did not prevent the rejection of the motion, by a close majority, how ever-109 against 101. A bill to amend the law concerning the vacating of seats by members of Parliament has been brought in. It provides for a transfer of offices without the necessity of resignation of the seat. ENTERTAINMENT TO GENERAL VIVIAN. A GRAND banquet was given on Saturday last at the India-house to General Vivian to celebrate his ap proaching departure for the Crimea, where he will take the ccmrniind of the Turkish contingent force under British pay. The entertainment was on a most magnificent scale, and the majority of the Cabinet Ministers, together with M. Musurus, the Turkish ambassador, were present and made speechk in the course of the evening. General Vivian, in returning thanks when his own health was drunk, said:— I need scarcely say how honoured I feel at being se- lected for this important command. I feel that 1 owe such distinction to the kind confidence of the noble lord at the head of the War-office, supported by the good opinion of the honourable Court of Directors, whose servant and soldier I have been, rather than to any merits of my own. I am perfectly alive to the arduous nature of the duty I am about to undertake, but do not shrink from it, because I know I shall be assisted by some of the bravest soldiers in her Majesty's or the company's service. In my own case, my selection has been adopted simply because it is supposed that I have had the best opportunity of forming an opinion. Of those who will join us from the Queen's army it will be unbecoming of me to speak—their selection has been intrusted to other hands—but I ant empowered to state that many officers of her Majesty's service will join the contingent in the several ranks; and I ant sure that all will join with heart and soul in giving me their support. (Loud cheers.) We will all put our shoulders to the wheel and do our best, as is the custom of British soldiers. (Hear, hear.) COST OF THE LONDON POLICE. THE annual accounts of the Metropolitan Police Force for the year 1854 have just been published. They show that the gross total receipts on account of the said force amounted to 450,4841., and the ex penditure to 392,7031. Of the receipts the sum of 337,4021. accrued from the rate warrants, and the rest from the Consolidated Fund, and remuneration for special service of the police. Of the expendi ture, 8,8231. was appropriated to the payment of officers' expenses ; 1031. to law charges ; 337,078/. to pay, clothing, and equipment; 2,8911. to medical and funeral expenses; 7,054/. to horses, vans, &c. ; 14,5981. to station-houses and section-houses; 13,1731. to fuel and light ; 3,592/. to miscellaneous charges; 4,2821. to retired allowances ; and 1451. to payments to the Exchequer. The gross total sum paid by the receiver for the " police courts " amounted to 50,0071. This includes the salary of one magistrate, at 1,2001.; twenty-two magistrates, 1,0001. each; twenty-three clerks, at salaries varying from 1001. to 5001.; and fifty-two ushers, gaolers, and messengers. The expense of the Police Gazette is 1,9231., inclu sive of the salary of the editor, which is fixed at 1001. a year. The total number of persons belonging to the metropolitan police force on the Ist of January last amounted to 5,731, including one inspecting superintendent, eighteen superintendents, 133 in spectors, 625 sergeants, and 4,954 constables. The salaries of the constables vary from 44/. to 781. with clothing and coal. The salaries of the inspectors vary from 501. to 9001., and those of the superinten dents from 2001. to 3801. SIR CHARLES NAPIER has written a letter to the Times in vindication of his conduct., both towards the public and the Admiralty, with regard to the late debate in the House of Commons. The gallant admiral says, in the course of his communication : Why did the French admiral and myself refuse to attack Sweaborg? Because we had not means, and because the narrow entrance was blocked np. Had it been opened (even without gun-boats) the allied flags would have been flying on the inner road of Sweaborg. A ship attack on a strong fortress is at all times difficult; add to that the in tricacy of the navigation and bad weather, and it becomes impossible. . . . . I admit that once, and once only, I did write harshly, but I apologised to Admiral Berkeley for so doing. After the 4th of October, when I was in sulted, I did write strong letters, but they were neither insubordinate nor turbulent—they were not a bit stronger than a man of spirit ought to write when he felt his honour attacked. As to keeping my flag up under Sir James Graham, no consideration on earth would have induced me to do it. No Officer of honour and character is safe in his hands. 1 leave him now before the public, accused by me of wilfully perverting my letters and goading me to risk her Majesty's fleet. I have been refused redress by the Admiralty and the Prime Minister, and I must trust to the generosity of the people of England till peace enables me to fully state my case. THE EARL or CARLISLE left Grosvenor-place on Monday en route to Dublin, to succeed the Earl of SL Germans as Lord Lieutenant. His lordship has resigned the presidency of the Royal Society of Literature. 411. I