The Press. — London, England, 1855-04-28 00:00:00

394 the commission of 1850, and provided that the caput should consist of four members, appointed by the heads of houses—four by the professors, four by the senior, and four by the junior masters of arts. By this plan there would be an infusion of young blood into the council ; and the junior members, compara tively fresh from their studies, would know the wants of the actual generation of students. The bill like wise rendered unnecessary the taking of a large number of votes; it provided also fur the consti tution of private halls, where young men could re ceive a university education without belonging to any college—a plan not so necessary at Cambridge as at Oxford, since at the former place students on coming into residence might reside out of college, but which might be desirable, and could produce no possible disadvantage. Lord LYNDHURST said that so much had been done by the university to amend itself that he regretted the introduction of any bill, though he admitted that if none were introduced Oxford might feel sore, and the perfect harmony might be disturbed which existed between the two universities. The noble lord then gave a brilliant sketch of the studies of Cambridge and of the glories of her sons, and con eluded by exclaiming that we must be careful how we impaired the efficiency of such a system by new devices, or interfered with that solid system of educa tion which had hitherto been followed by such splen did results. There was, however, one point which required alteration, and for which the bill made no direct provision. The present employment of private tutors led to a system of " cram," and he believed that the most distinguished members of the univer sity were desirous of putting an end to it. There were many provisions in the bill preparing the way for such an alteration, and he had reason to believe that very extensive alterations were in contemplation. He objected to the creation of halls as unnecessary, but did not think that they would do any harm. After referring to the syndicate which the university had spontaneously appointed to reverse its own sta tutes, he promised his assistance to make the bill in every way as perfect as possible. The Earl of Powis said that the State had done little for the university—it drew, in fact, a revenue from the taxation of degrees—yet the State put for ward most arrogant pretensions, and the liberal founders and endowers of the college were scoffed at as men of weak and narrow intellects. The carrying out of the bill would depend on the discretion of the commissioners, who, he observed, with the exception of Baron Alderson, were all of one political party. He could not agree with Lord Lyndhurst in his strictures upon the system of private tutors—he thought that the students should be left without interference in their studies. . Lord REDESDALZ said that many of the provisions of the bill were precisely similar to those proposed in that house for the Oxford Bill, and rejected by the Commons. He trusted that the bill would prove a satisfactory settlement of the question. Lord CANNING observed that the existence of two overruling colleges at Cambridge prevented the assi milation of the elections to those at Oxford. The house went into committee pro formd. Lord Lyndhurst intimated that he kept certain amend ments in reserve. MARRI AGE WITH A DECEASED WIFE'S SISTER. The sitting on Wednesday was occupied by this subject, the arguments for and against which were precisely the same as those used some weeks back. Mr. Walpole opposed the second reading as unpo pular in Ireland, Scotland, and opposed to the feel ings of the great mess of Englishmen. He contended that the Divine law treated of on the same grounds as consanguinity. It was said that such marriages were contracted notwithstanding the law, but is ever double marriages ? Mr. Wigram said that the principle of the existing law was that of the first fourteen centuries, and he would not disturb it. If a man might marry two sisters, why should not a woman marry two brothers ? Mr. Napier urged against the bill the traditionary law of the Jews and the canons of the Irish Church. Mr. Ker Seymer said that if they once changed the rules of the Church it was impossible to say where they were to stop. Mr. Whiteside opposed it as leading to liti gation. On the other hand, the Attorney General alleged the practice of a large number of the States of Europe and of the United States of America, and that the early Christian Church had been influenced by the fiction of the Roman law; Mr. Collier on the impossibility of making a man regard his wil'e's sister in the same light he did his own ; Mr. M. Milnes on the unblemished character of persons who had con tracted these marriages; and Mr. J. Chambers on the absence of distinct prohibition in the Scriptures. The debate was adjourned to the Pith of May. NEWSPAPER STAMPS. On Monday, on going into committee on this bill, Mr. CAVAN went into the history of newspapers, to show how they had been hampered at all times by legislative enactments, and exhibited a small sheet, THE PRESS. which he said was of the maximum size allowed by law twenty nine years ago. He thought the present a fair opportunity to try if the transmission of news papers through the post could not be effected for a smaller sum, and observed that the charge of a penny, though a light one on large newspapers, was heavy on small ones. The press had become a great educational institute, and he was anxious that the humbler classes should have it at the lowest rate. Mr. BARROW having made some observations in the same sense, the house went into committee, when Mr. COLLIER directly moved that the postage on first transmission be reduced to a halfpenny, with an additional halfpenny for each retransmission. It was important that the circulation of the great London papers should be increased as far as pos sible; but the penny postage would diminish that circulation, and increase that of provincial newspapers of a low class. An opinion had been attributed to Mr. Rowland Hill that with the reduction of the stamp duty and the continuance of a high rate of postage not one halt of the present number of newspapers would bo circulated through the post. Lord STANLEY said that, on principles of abstract justice, newspapers had no right to tree retransmis sion ; but they had to deal with interests that had grown up under peculiar laws, and any violent alter ation would be an act of injustice. As to the reduc tion of the postage to one halfpenny, it was a matter for the Post-office to settle. The Post-office had not, he apprehended, any wish to profit by the trans mission of newspapers ; but it should not, on the other hand, be subjected to loss. He believed him self that a halfpenny would be below the price at which newspapers could be carried ; and he should support the original proposition for a penny. The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER adverted to the practical difficulties of stamps for retransmission. It involved either the employment of postage-stamps in all cases—which introduced the difficult question of weight—or the necessity of obliterating the im pressed stamp, which would be attended with great difficulty. Mr. M. Mna.ms agreed in the principle that the transmission of first-class newspapers should be en couraged by all possible means. He believed that the practical difficulties of the proposition had been overrated. Retransmission would not take place except when the newspaper contained matter of great interest. Mr. GLADSTONE said that the principle of encou raging the London newspapers by performing a service for them at the public expense smacked very much of Protection. The real question was, what was the least charge, or an average, at which the Post office could afford to carry newspapers. The comparison between the private carrier, who could perform his task on his own terms and in his own quantities, and the Post-office, bound to a par ticular duty, was not a fair one. After mature con sideration he had come to the conclusion that a halfpenny stamp would be a heavy tax on the public for the benefit of the proprietors and readers of newspapers. The very difficulty of getting any dates on the subject was a reason for adopting the penny charge. Mr. BARROW said that in America newspapers were carried by post at a still lower charge. Mr. GIBSON said that other printed matter ought to have the benefit of circulation on the same terms as newspapers. Why should a libel be circulated at a minimum charge because published in a periodi cal, while the printed answer could not be circulated except at a much higher price. The clause enforcing the penny postage was then agreed to. The clause providing for the register of news papers came next under discussion. As proposed, it enforces registration for all periodical publications proposing to avail themselves of the postage-stamp. Mr. Whiteside proposed that all publications should be compelled to register. The Chancellor of the Exchequer objected that the object of the clause was the avoidance of pains and penalties, and to give the Commissioners of Stamps power over improper pub lications, by withholding the postal privilege. Mr. Gladstone objected to both propositions. On the one hand, he saw no reason for subjecting ()Winery printed matter to be registered, the name of the printer was au equal safeguard to the public ; on the other, he thought that all newspapers should be registered. By the proposed plan the inferior news papers would escape, while those were precisely the class on whom it was most advisable to have a firm hold. Mr. Disraeli supported Mr. Whiteside's pro. position, arguing that when so great a power was vested in the public press, the public ought to look for a sufficient control, which was not afforded by the name of the printer, who might have no existence whatever. Mr. M. Gibson, on the other hand, pro tested against all restrictions on the press. Ulti mately the clause was postponed, as were the next two which depeuded on it. The clauses subjecting periodicals, of whatever class, to the same regulations as newspapers, were agreed to. Ilikohi, SATURDAY, TESTAMENTARY JURISDICTION BILL. The second reading of this bill stood for Thum - day, when Mr. Mkuss moved that it be read a second time that day six months. He argued, in the first place, on the small proportion—not above two per cent—of the whole number of wills registered about which there was any dispute, or which, in con. sequence, had anything to do with the Court of Chancery. He then referred to the commissions which had inquired into the subject, and the evi dence of many of the most experienced solicitors, all concurring in the opinion that the business was ex tremely well done in Doctors' Commons; that mat ters of such delicacy ought to be confided to a small number of practitioners immediately under the con trol of the court, and that it was highly inexpedient to transfer the business to the Court of Chancery. He then adverted to the practical details of working the proposed scheme. It required new buildings, but there were no new buildings ready. He re. gretted that the Solicitor• General had not taken a less extreme course. He might have turned the ecclesiastical court into a temporal court, giving the appointment of the judge to the Crown instead of the archbishop; and many other improvements might have been introduced, but there was no excuse for the entire abolition of a system which had worked so well, and at such moderate charges. There was a popular cry that Doctors' Commons was a sink of iniquity, but had not the selfsame cry been raised against the Court of Chancery. He appealed to his hon. friend to try the principle of amendment instead of abolition. Mr. COLLIER was for abolishing the ecclesiastical courts. They bad survived many assaults, but he hoped they would now receive their coup de grace. There was nothing in the disposition of a man's pro perty after his death that required a separate tribunal more than the disposition of his property during his lifetime. He thought that wills for a small amount could be left to the machinery of the county courts, and if cases of dispute arose they could then be tried at a cost which would not be ruinous to the poor man. Where the amount was large the cause might be tried at common law; where the courts now ad judicated on the question as to whether a man was sane or insane at the time of disposing of his pro. perty. Although these were his views he would not insist on them, but would accept the bill as a vast improvement on the present system, though he should propose some modification in committee. Sir F. THESIGER said that the last speaker in tended to support the bill, after objecting to every part of it. He asserted that, so far from there having been any general and universal censure passed upon the testamentary jurisdiction of the ecclesiastical courts, wherever a strong opinion had been ex pressed it had always been in favour of it. He dwelt long on the reportof the commissioners, which had so emphatically decided against the transference of testamentary business to chancery. This was not the first time the ecclesiastical courts had been attacked, and he read a squib, written two hundred years ago, purporting to be the will of Doctors' Commons, which bequeathed its registrars, proctors, and so on, to the Court of Common Pleas, to be admitted attorneys, and its decrees to the Court of Chancery. He believed that he had here accidentally brought to light the source whence his learned friend had derived his bill. He argued against the admis sion of the entire body of attorneys, containing, of course, many unworthy members, to the delicate and dangerous business of the management of wills. He detailed the perils that might arise from such a course. As to the present management, no complaints were ever heard of the judgment of the judge of ecclesiastical courts on testamentary matters. Many of the counsel there practising were among the most learned members of the profession. He saw no reason for this experi ment; he thought it rash and untried, and for which the public would have to pay enormously in the shape of compensatin. He recommended a modified plan—let the Prerogative Court and the Arches Court be blended in one, to be called the Queen's Court; they would retain the whole of the present machinery, which would give more satisfaction than the Court of Chancery, where the rule and practice of taking evidence were so cumbrous and expensive. This was far better than the entire sweeping away of courts so free from reproach, in favour of which so many opinions had been expressed, and which had stood so long for the benefit of the public at large. Mr. R. PALMER said that it was admitted that the present testamentary jurisdiction was in a state un worthy of the improvements which had taken place in other branches of the law. It was absurd to say that the existing system satisfied the country. That system must be recast. It appeared to him absurd to say that chancery should determine how an estate should be distributed, without having control over the instruments of distribution. At present, in dis putes respecting the validity of a will, first there was a suit in the Ecclesiastical Court, then a bill filed in chancery for the management of the estate, and then ■ gi