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

THE CORK ELECTION.

AN able article has appeared in the Morning Herald
this week on the result of the county Cork election.
With the actual candidates it was a matter of indiffe-
rence to us how the contest ended. The struggle
was one, not of principle in any shape, but of selfish
interests; and, as VIM to be expected, the man won
the day who bid highest for priestly support. These
mock contests are a disgrace to our representative
system ; they expose it to contempt, and, worse still,
they tend to make the whole business of Government
a job. But why was the Conservative party inactive
on this occasion t Why does the brave old public
spirit of the country slumber? It is on this point
that we quote the forcible observations of the Herald.
We may differ from that journal on some questions
of policy, but we are not insensible to its services,
and we are happy to see that it is exerting its influ-
enee to rouse the Conservative party to a sense of the
national dangers, and to the evils which must result
from the absence of any system of organised ac•
tivity

A weekly contemporary has asked, pertinently, how it
happens that with spoo Conservative electors in Cork no
Conservative candidate was started ? We confess this is
a question which it seems to us it will be difficult to answer
satisfactorily. There is no use in disguising a fact—the
Conservative party are not as active as they should be, nor,
we take leave to tell them, as they must be, if they desire
to maintain their position in Parliament and with the
country. Places of consequence, influential counties, and
more influential boroughs, pass into the hands of Whigs,
Radicals, and adventurers of no politics at all, owing to a
want of intelligent combination, or to apathy, or to some
CBUB.! still less accountable. The Conservative party might,
by judicious energy, become yet an irresistible power in
the State, and command again, as they once did, the House
of Commons ; but to do so they must not be mere *Teets,
tors of the political arena ; they must be prepared to act—
vigilant to seize on opportunities, and sagacious in the
choice of representatives. Liverpool was lost by sending
down the wrong man—Cork has been left to a scramble
between three Liberals, because there was no one to op-
pose them. We cannot afford to lose opportunities and
advantages such as these. The Conservative party should
make up their minds, once for all, to contest every inch of
ground—to permit no vacancy in the representation of the
United Kingdom to be filled up without a struggle. We
do not underrate the difficulties in the way of such a deter-
mined course of action, much less do we desire to under-
rate the influence of the still powerful Tory party. While
England exists as a nation that party must also exist as
one of the permanent political divisions of her people. It
has magnificent antecedents, and it has a great destiny to
fulfil ; but its energies must be put forth, especially in this
the hour of the nation's trial. We see the Government of
the country in the hands of a clique at once incapable and
corrupt, unable to govern, yet resorting to the most con-
temptible arts and practices to prolong their tenure of office
—who make the most important branches of the public ser-
vic" the opportunities for unblushing favoritism and
shameless jobbing ; and who carry their impudent disre-
gard of their duty to their country to the extent of attempt-
ing to stultify a solemn parliamentary investigation, ren-
dered necessary by an amount of official neglect and
incompetency Without any parallel in our annals. We see
all this, and yet we are content to permit such an Admin.
istratlon to lay hold of parliamentary vacancies, and to fill
them with their creatures, while we look on, with apparent
unconcern.

SA2IIRDAY,

BY CONTINENTAL TELEGRAPH.

VIENNA, FRIDAY.
Drouyn de Lhuys left Vienna this morning is
eight o'clock.
The Conference of yesterday is generally believed
to have led to no result.

ST. PETERSBURG, APRIL 20.

General Prince Gortschakoff reports, on the 22nd
of April, from Sebastopol, that on that day the enemy
had slackened their flre, which had been very violent
during the preceding twelve days. The loss of the
garrison had been much less in the last few days
than before that time.

There was nothing important from other parts of

the Crimea.

Arial, 28, 1855.

Vrotabings xn Varlinnunt.

THE BUDGET.

On Monday the Chancellor of the Exchequer's
financial propositions underwent a further sifting.
Mr. GOULBURN began by objecting to the proposition
which devotes at the conclusion of peace a million
annually to the redemption of the debt. We were
thus throwing not only the interest of the debt upon
posterity, but its redemption. There was no proba-
bility that Parliament would fulfil its engagement.
It had once adopted a resolution ordering that
5,000,0001. should be set apart yearly as a sinking
find. This in a few years was reduced to 3,000,0001.,
bat neither the one nor the other was actually put in
practice. He objected to the creation of un-
redeemable stock, for such the Three per Cent.
Consols were practically. It would, he thought,
have been a wiser course if the loan had been raised
in the Three per Cent. Annuities, capable of redemp-
tion in 1874.
Mr. T. BARING was astonished at the opposition
to a clause which simply declared that we should re-
pay our debts when we had the means of so doing.
Because we had not done so hitherto was no reason
that the house should refuse a resolution declaratory
of its honest intentions. Although it was urged that
future Governments would find it impossible to carry
out the resolution, he yet hoped that we should find
a Government strong enough to resist the pressure
for excessive reduction. It would be necessary for
the public credit to maintain at all times a surplus
revenue, and to apply that surplus to the extinction
of debt contracted in a period of emergency. As for
contracting the loan on the annuities redeemable in
1874, the Government of that day would have quite
enough to do with the 250,000,0001. which would
then be staring it in the face. As for borrowing the
money on terminable annuities, it was practically
impossible, except on ruinous terms, in the present
sate of English society.
Mr. GLADSTONE fully concurred in the last asser•
tion. He, too, believed a surplus revenue necessary
to the credit of the country. But the question was
whether a clause binding the house to the repayment
of the loan would assist in maintaining that surplus.
What was the use of Parliament enacting a clause
for the purpose of declaring what it had no power to
give effect to 7 This clause purported to be a con
tract and pledge, but a future Parliament might,
many years banes, question the right of the present
Parliament to abridge the discretion of that future
Parliament, by not merely asserting the principle
that a su plus revenue should be maintained appli-
cable to the extinction of the debt, but by specifying
the particular amount and form of investment, with
respect to which the future Parliament would be a
better judge than the present,. The present Parlia-
ment would do well iu attending to its own duties,

without attempting to teach theirs to future Puha-

Air. LArNG objected to the loan being raised on the
Three per Cent. Consols. This had the effect of
reducing the price of those securities, and thereby
diminishing the property of the country. If the
loan had been raised in the Three-and-a-Half, there
would have been some prospect hereafter of reducing
the interest. At the commencement of a new series
of loan the experiment of creating terminable stock
should have been tried. The great moneyed cor•
poration might have been asked at what price they
would grant such a loan. It was the system adopted
by the French with success in loans for their
railways.
Mr. JAMES M‘GREGOR said that the circumstances
were not parallel. The large profits on French rail-
ways enabled them to pay off their mortgages with
comparative ease.
Mr. HANKEY Said that the same principle of
alledging the house to the repayment of loans had
been adopted by Mr. Gladstone himself, who had
borrowed money upon Treasury Bonds, and asked
the house to agree to a certain amount of taxation to
enable him to redeem them.
Mr. CARDWELL said the case did not apply, for
here there was a special contract entered into with
the lenders for• the redemption of the loan.
The CHANCELLOR of the ExcnicenEri said that it
was of course admitted that the present could not
bind future Parliaments; but the clause, it adoptedi
will have this effect, that it creates a permanent
charge on the Consolidated Fund, and it becomes
the duty of the existing Government to make provi-
sion fur that sum out of the ways and means
of the year—and it will be the duty of the
Chancellor of the Exchequer, so long as this act
remains unrepealed, to estimate for 1,000,000/. in
his annual budget for the purpose of repaying the
loan now contracted. As the Government found it
impossible to borrow the money in terminable
annul ies, they had done all in their power to provide
for the extinction of the debt. He trusted that thus
a real and not an illusory sinking fund would be es-
tablished, and regretted the failure of those attempted

THE PRESS.

to be established in former times. The objection
that permanent annuities was not redeemable was
unfounded. Government could at any time go into
the market and purchase any amount of those
annuities. If an open loan had been proposed,
besides other disadvantages, it would have created a
ran upon the savings-banks, and Government would
have had to repay with one hand what it borrowed
with the other. .

After some farther discussion, turning entirely
upon technical points, the various clauses were
agreed to.
VIENNA NEGOTIATIONS.

Mr. BRIGHT having demanded on Monday if the
Vienna negotiations were at an end, and if the house
could be Informed precisely what was the difference
between the terms offered by the allies, and any
counter propositions that may have been offered by
the Russian Government,
Lord PALMERSTON stated that at the conference on
the preceeding Thursday, at which were present the
English, French, Austrian, Turkish, and Russian
plenipotentiaries, the plenipotentiaries of England,
France, Austria, and Turkey proposed to the repre-
sentative of Russia, as a mode of making the prepon-
derance of Russia cease in the Black Sea,—which, in
principle, had been admitted and accepted by Russia
—either that the amount of the Russian naval force
in the Black Sea should henceforth be limited by
treaty, or that the Black Sea should be declared en
tirely neutral ground, and all ships-of war of all
countries be excluded from it, so that henceforth it
should be a sea for commerce only. The Russian
plenipotentiary required forty-eight hours to take
that proposal into consideration. Those forty-eight
hours elapsed on Saturday, and on Saturday another
conference was held, at which the Russian plenipo
tentiary absolutely refused to accept either of the '
alternatives proposed, those alternatives being pressed
by the four other plenipotentiaries unanimously.
Thereupon the conference adjourned sine die. In
reply to a further question, Lord Palmerston stated
that no counter proposition had been offered by
Russia.
The subject was resumed in the other house on
Tuesday by the Earl of MALMESBURY, who said that
though he much regretted that the hope of peace
was at an end, that regret was diminished when he
looked at the terms which were proposed to Russia.
One of these was that the number of Russian ships
in the Black Sea was to be limited, but this was a
condition which it would be hereafter impossible to
enforce. Russia would be certain to violate it, and
we should not make the violation of it a easus belli,
any more than we did the violation by Russia of the
former regulation respecting the navigation of the
Danube. By the terms of the second point, Prussia
was to be one of the protectors of the Danubian pro
vinces. Now, the animus exhibited by Prussia through-
out the negotiations had shown that her vote would
be always against us, and he wished to know, therefore,
if she was to be included in the protectorate.
The Earl of CLARENDON, in reply, gave a somewhat
more detailed account of the circumstances which

led to a break up of the conference. When the
third point came under discussion, the representatives
of the allied powers, in order to prove that they had
no wish to humiliate Russia, but, on the contrary,
desired to consult her dignity, proposed to the Rus-
sian representatives themselves to take the initiative
as to the means by which they would give effect to
the principle of that proposition. The Russian ple-
nipotentiaries acknowledged the courtesy of the pro-
ceeding, but asked for time to refer to their Govern-
ment. That time was given, but in the meanwhile,
and for obvious reasons, we declined to go on with
the discussion of the fourth point. The answer from
St. Petersburg arrived, and it was that the Rassian
Government had no proposition to make. The allied
representatives on the following day brought forward
their proposals, and the Russian plenipotentiaries
asked forty-eight hours to consider them. That time
was also given, and on Saturday they absolutely re-
jected the proposals, both as to limitation in and ex-
clusion from the Black Sea. Whether that rejection
of the proposals by the Russian plenipotentiaries was
justified by argument he was unable to say, because
this meeting took place only on Saturday, and their
information came simply by the telegraph. With
regard to Prussia, her conduct had excluded her from
the conference, and would, therefore, have excluded
her from all arrangement which might have been
made.
The Earl of HARDWICKE made some inquiries as
to the probable conduct of Austria.
Lord CLARENDON could only say that Austria had,
up to the close of the conference, held the same lan-
guage as England and France, and he had no reason
to believe that she would depart from the treaty of
the 2nd December.
THE SEBASTOPOL COMMITTEE.

On Monday the election of a member in the room
of Mr. J. Ball was proceeded with. Mr. Roebuck
had given notice that he would move the appoint-
ment of Mr. De Were, but now announced that the
committee had agreed that there was no noesesity

393

for increasing their number. Against this Mr. Ben-
tinek protested, and moved the appointment of Capt.
Gladstone. Lord Palmerston declared his perfect
indifference on the subject. Mr. Disraeli explained
the part he had taken in the formation of the com-
mittee. He had recommended Sir J. Pakington and
Mr. Layard, who were appointed, and Admiral
Walcott and Colonel Lindsay. He thought the house
perfectly free to choose, and advocated the appoint-
ment of a naval member. After some discussion, in
which Sir G. Grey declared that the Ministry had
nothing to conceal, and were only anxious for fair-
ness, Mr. Roebuck declared that he should not
divide the house; and Lord Palmerston repeating
his declaration of indifference, Captain Stirling was
nominated amidst cheers from the Opposition.

TELEGRAPH TO BALAKLAVA.
On Thursday Mr. LAYARD, stating that the tele-
graph from Balaklava was now terminated, asked
if the Government had received any intelligence
by it t
Lord PALMERSTON said that two messages had been
received—one yesterday, the other to-day—but they
only referred to the opening of the telegraph, and
embraced no news.

Sir C. Woon, who received distinctly both mes-
sages, stated that one came from Sir E. Lyons, and
the other from our consul at Bucharest, stating that
he had no news to communicate.
In answer to a further question from Mr. ROEBUCK,
Sir C. WOOD said that the telegraph was not yet com-
pletely finished, but that news could be now received
in a few hours.
Mr. ROEBUCK said that, considering how interested
the public were on the subject, the noble lord might
perhaps think it proper to malce inquiries at Bala-
klava, and let us knuw how things were going on.
Lord PALMERBToN said that it was his intention to
request the commander•in-chief to forward a com-
munication from day to day.
RELIGIOUS TESTS.
-

Mr. HEYWOOD on Thursday moved that the house
resolve itself into a committee, to consider such
clauses of the Act of Uniformity of DM as impose
religious tests, limiting the advantages of academical,
or grammar, or free-school education, and so much
of any regulations of national institutions, either in
England or Ireland, as impose religious tests as
conditions or qualifications for any advantages con-
nected with education, in the English or Irish uni-
versities or public schools. At present every public
schoolmaster was required to sign his conformity to
the Church of England, and in most public schools
the master was necessarily 4 graduate either of
Oxford or Cambridge. He believed that institution
which selected the best men of the day from all
parts of the country would be best fitted to advance
the interests of the people. The result of the law as
it stood was, that every public school, as it stood,
was a Church of England institution.
Lord PALMERSTON said that the bill embraced two
questions, one as to tests from schoolmasters and
tutors in private families, all which were required
by the Act of Uniformity, though they had long
ceased to be enforced. The other referred to the
universities, and would disturb the settlement made
last year with the University of Oxford. To this he
could on no account give his consent. He agreed
in the first clause to this extent, that he would not
oppose the house going into committee on the sub.
ject, being prepared to concur in the sweeping away
of obsolete enactments.
Mr. OtAntrrortz spoke strongly on the inexpediency
of raising this question year atter year, and unsettling
the ancient institutions of the country. These
matters should be treated cautiously, and step by
step. He should most strenuously oppose any inter-
ference with the Oxford act of last year, and urged
Mr. Heywood to amend his motion at once.
After Lord J. MANNERS had declared that to open
public schools to Dissenters would be to subvert the
entire trusts of their endowment, Mr. Hrvwoon
proposed to limit that part of his motion to the
University of Dublin. Against this Mr. WHITESIDIR
protested, saying that the University of Dublin was
the most liberal of all. Mr. HEYWOOD then proposed
to confine his motion to the first clause, and after-
wards to withdraw the motion with the view of in-
troducing another, but the house refused its con-
sent to the withdrawal, and negatived the motion at
once.

CAMBRIDGE UNIVERSITY BILL.
The Loin) CfrANCELLOR on Tuesday, on the motion
for going into committee on this bill, explained its
provisions with some detail. Adverting with high
praise to the many spontaneous efforts for improve-
ment made by the university, he observed that all
that was wanted was the proper power to enable the
university to carry out its own views. For this pur-
pose the bill, in the first place, created a board of
commissioners—six in number—the Earl of Bur.
lington, Lord Monteagle, the Bibhop of Chester, Mr.
Baron Alderson, Professor Sedgwick, and Mr. John
Lefevre. The bill then provided for an alteration in
the election of the cepa. The new plan was founded,
with some inodigoation, on the recommendation of

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,