The Press. — London, England, 1854-08-05 00:00:00

726 supply to invite attention to the subject of manufac- Luting industry in Ireland, which was, he declared, threatened with rapid extinction, owing to the un checked current of emigration out of the country. He suggested the expediency of instituting an inquiry into the means whereby this process of depopulation might be arrested, and especially whether the industrial condition of Ireland would be ameliorated by the establishment of training and apprenticeship schools or other similar institutions. The hon. member developed his views respecting the improvement of Irish industry in a speech of considerable length, in the course of which he offered many criticisms upon the course of recent legislation respecting questions wherein the interests of Ireland were involved. The best remedy now to be provided was, he said, to be found in the estab lishment of additional manufactures by some direct agency, as had been done in Belgium. }Pi did not require that any contribution for this purpose should come from the Consolidated Fund, but rather that the towns and districts of Ireland might be allowed, at their own risk, to follow the course so successfully pursued in Belgium. Lord J. RUSSELL vindicated the Government and the Legislature from the censures of the hon. member, both on account of what they had done and of what they abstained from doing. With regard to the suggested establishment of industrial schools, he submitted that no case had been made out for deviating, on behalf of Ireland, from the course pursued in this country for the promotion of indus trial education. After some remarks from Mr. J. Macgregor, Mr. Maguire, Mr. A. Pellatt, and Mr. Kennedy, the sub ject dropped. MAYNOOTH. The Public Revenue and Consolidated Fund Charges Bill was brought forward for committal on Thursday. The measure had already passed through the Commons, but, having undergone revision by the Peers, parliamentary etiquette required that the bill, being a money bill, should be again introduced de novo in the Lower House. On Thursday, therefore, it was considered in committee, and all the clauses passed. When the schedules were moved, Mr. Spoomiii renewed the motion which he had proposed when the bill had before been passing through a similar stage, for the purpose of removing the May nooth grant from the Consolidated Fund and includ ing it among the items subjected to annual vote by Parliament. The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER opposed the motion, partly on the ground that it was inexpedient to alter unnecessarily a money bill which had under gone revision in the House of Peers, and partly on account of consideration for the people of Ireland. Mr. DISRAELI made some remarks upon the bill generally, and pointed out various faults and imper fections in its details. He proceeded to support the motion respecting the Maynooth grant. Questions of analogous character had presented themselves repeat edly during the present and previous sessions, and he considered that their recurrence indicated much po pular dissatisfaction with the political status of the Itoman Catholics in the United Kingdom. The con troversy had become most important and perplexing, and demanded serious consideration and a speedy settlement on the part of the Government. The time was now come when they must reconcile the recog nition of the Protestant constitution with the princi ple of civil and religious liberty. It was impossible to leave the rights and privileges appertaining to the members of various sects throughout the country to be the subjects for perpetual discussions, and tossed to and fro in incessant parliamentary debates. He called on the Government to attempt a solution of this vast question early next session. Lord J. RUSSELL rejoiced to find that some inter val was to be allowed the Government before embark ing upon so gigantic a task, and briefly urged that the motion actually before them pointed exactly in the reverse direction to that indicated by Mr. Diraeli, inasmuch ask would invite instead of closing controversial discussions. Mr. NEWDEOATE contended that as Oxford Uni• versity was subject to parliamentary control the same measure ought in justice to be dealt to the Maynooth establishment. The committee then divided— For the motion Against The bill then passed through committee. IRISH SPIRITS AND THE CONSTABULARY. The Spirits (Ireland) Bill was read a third time in the Peers on Tuesday, and the question put that the bill should pass. Lord MONTEAGLE complained that the measure converted the constabulary force of Ireland into officers for the collection of revenue, contrary to the whole current of authority upon the subject, and in opposition to the principle upon which the force was constituted. The bill turned the constables into excisemen, who knew nothing of such dutie le a n thus produced a divided duty, which would o TIIE PRESS. great embarrassment. The Government might add to the revenue police without material expense, and thus leave the constabulary to fulfil its proper duties. The noble lord then moved an amendment, to the effect that sub-constables should be excluded from employment upon revenue cases. Lord CANNING contended that the employment of the police in suppressing Illicit distillation would not impair their efficiency, and referred to the authority of several officers in support of this view. The ex periment, limited as it was by the terms of the bill, could not be productive of any mischief. The Marquis of CLANRICARDE considered that no good reason had been shown for the diversion of the constabulary from their regular duties. The amendment was negatived, but their lordships afterwards divided upon clause 13, which enables the Lord Lieutenant to employ the constabulary in the suppression of illicit distillation. The numbers were — For the clause Against it Majority for —o The bill was then passed. THE RUSSO DUTCH LOAN. After numerous disappointments, Lord DUDLEY STUART succeeded on Tuesday in finding an oppor tunity to bring forward and enforce his motion setting forth that, in consequence of the conduct of Russia, England was freed from all obligation to make any further payments on account of the Russo-Dutch loan. The noble lord appended to his motion a eries of explanatory resolutions, declaring that the treaty of Vienna stipulates that the navigation of rivers which separate or cross the states of parties to the treaty shall be entirely free, from the point where each of them becomes navigable to its mouth, and that each state bordering on the ri vers is to be at the expense of maintaining, through the extent of its territory, the necessary works, in order that no obstacle may be experienced to the navigation. That Russia has, notwith standing the reiterated remonstrances of this country, wilfully neglected the duty of maintaining the necessary works in the channel of the Danube, at the mouth of the Sulina branch, thereby seriously injuring the commerce of this country. That there has already been paid from the British treasury, towards the principal and interest of the Russo-Dutch loan, the sum of 4,110,9681. Is. 10d., and that the liquidation of the remaining part of the loan will require further annual payments from the British treasury until the year 1911, amounting to 3,386010. 95. 3d., making then the aggregate payment, 7,291,6661., and the average for each of the 100 years, 14,0781. Ile. Gd. That by the conven tion of the leo day of November, 1831, between the King of Great Britain and the Emperor of Russia, it was agreed by Great Britain to secure to Russia the payment of a portion of her old Dutch debt, in consideration of the general arrangements of the Congress of Vienna, to which she had given her adhesion, arrange. ments which remain in full force. That this house is, theretore, of opinion that Russia, having withdrawn that adhesion, and those arrangements being through her act no longer in force, the payments from this country on account of that debt should be henceforth suspended. These resolutions Lord Dudley now supported by a variety of arguments and citations tending to prove that the engagements into which this country had entered in 1815 for the payment of the loan in ques tion were practically bound np in a treaty concluded in 1831, with various other conditions which Russia had undertaken to fulfil. As these conditions, and especially one whereby the free navigation of the Sulina mouth of the Danube VMS to be kept free from all natural or di plomatic obstacles, had been flagrantly violated by the Russian Government, England was, he contended, exonerated on her side from the obligation of per forming her part of the convention. The observance of treatie", he argued, should not be one-sided, and any infraction of their articles on one part justified reprisals on the other. Even if peace had continued, this country would have been freed from all further obligation according to the rules of international law. War having broken out, there was a fresh argument in favour of his resolutions, under the hypothesis that all treaties lapsed upon the occurrence of hostilities. Sir W. MotEswonxn saw no difference between the conclusions aimed at in the resolutions now presented and the doctrine of repudiation. Similar motions had been made and rejected in 1847, after the seizure of Cracow, and yet the claim might then have been resisted with a better grace, since we were at peace with Russia at that period, while during war the country was more especially bound in honour to pay its debts. All modern publicists agreed in deciding that nations were bound to keep faith with their creditors without inquiring into the nationality of those creditors or the accidents of war or peace between their respective sovereigns. This doctrine was sanctioned by all modern prac tice ; it was the sign and token of our improved civilisation ; and any attempt to revert to the system of reprisals was a retrograde step towards the customs of a bygone barbarism. After laying down these general principles, Sir W. Molesworth adverted to the special circumstances under which the engagements for paying the Dutch loan to Russia had been entered into by this country. These, he alleged, involved the payment by England of a large sum by way of purchase-money for the colonies of the Cape, Demerara, Essequibo, and Berbice ; and the continuance of our liability depended not upon war or peace, but simply upon the abstinence, on the part of Russia, of any interference with the territorial arrangements of Belgium and Holland. Russia not SA.TV=U, having infringed this condition, the obligation of England still remained; and international law, acts of Parliament, and public honour, alike bound her to its fulfilment. He trusted the house would reject a proposition which was more worthy the delegate of some obscure and bankrupt transatlantic state than the representative of a metropolitan county. Mr. D. SEYMOUR supported the resolutions, cor.- tending that the loan was secured to Russia by a S9lOlllll covenant which Russia herself had broken. The ATTORNEY-CiENEPAL, in opposing the motion, argued that the character of the transaction was not the payment of a debt, but the honourable completii n of a bargain. Lord D. STUART replied; and after a few words from Mr. Cayley and Sir D. Norreys, The house divided — For the motion 6 Against RUSSIAN SECURITIES BILL. The consideration of this bill, whose progress through the house had been marked by so many Mi nisterial differences of opinion, was resumed on Wee nesday by the Commons. No sooner, however, had the house go: into committee on the measure than the SOISCITOR•GENERAL proposed to supersede its principal clause, and substitute another of very di.- ferent texture. The amended formula, which may be said to contain the whole pith and purport of tl bill, ran as follows " If, during the continuance of hostilities between her Majesty and the Emperor of Buss* any British subject bind', in any country, wilfully or knowingly take, acquire, become possessed of, or interested in any stocks, funds, scrip, bonds, debenture'', or securities fur money, which, since the 29th day of Margin 1854, have or bath been, or which, during the continuance of tilitiee as aforesaid, shall be created, issued, entered into, or cured by or in the name of the Government of Russia, or any person or persons on its behalf, every person so taking, ac quiring, becoming possessed of, or interested in any such stocks, funds, scrip, bonds, debentures, or securities for motley, as aforesaid, shall be guilty of a misdemeanour, and, upon being convicted thereof, shall be imprisoned for a term of not less than three calendar months. Provided always, that the provisions of this act shall not extend to or include the case of a British sub ject claiming an interest in the estate or effects of any deceased person, or the case of a British subject taking the estate or effects of his debtor in execution, or the case of a British subject claiming in any country to be interested under any bankluptcy, insolvency, sequestration, ceesio bonorum, or disposition of pro perty in trust for creditors, but that in every such case tho British subject may take and receive any share, legacy. dividend, debt or emu of money due or belonging to him, notwithstanding that the same may arise from or be produced by the sale or pro ceeds of any such stocks, funds, scrip, bonds, debentures, ur se curities for money as aforesaid." A preliminary discussion then took place respect ing the relative eligibility of the old or the new clause. During this debate Lord D. Stuart remained aloof, in an attitude of neutrality, apparently indifferent on the subject. Finally, his lause was struck out, and Sir It. Bethell's version adopted. The discussion af terwards proceeded upon the general principles in volved in the measure, and assumed a very discursive, and in some instances personal, character. Dr. PHILLIMORE supported the bill, which, he thought, was based upon a sound principle—identi fying the people with the Government, by declaring that we should not at the same moment be carrying on a military war and a commercial peace. Mr. HENLEY feared that the amendments opened a wide door to evasion, the exceptions appearing to him to be far too wide and too loosely framed. Lord PALMERSTON said it would be impossible to frame words which could meet every possible case of evasion. He thought the Solicitor-General had framed the clauses with sufficient skill and strin gency. Mr. WILSON, replying chiefly to Lord Palmerston, sought to prove that there was more sneer nonsense in the bill than in the arguments of those who op. posed it. The ATTORNEY-GENERAL, although he advocated the bill, wished it had never been introduced, and thought it would have been better had the matter been left to the Queen in Council. Mr. T. BARING commented upon various incidents which had occurred in the course of the discussions which had taken place on the bill. First came the performance of Lord Palmerston, who had ridden roughshod over Mr. Wilson ; then they had the amusement of seeing members of the Government running about to escape voting with a Cabinet Minis ter. Indeed, towards the close of the session, tl e Government had catered well for the amusement of the house, for the following night witnessed a sim - lar exhibition. On neither occasion were the law advisers of the Crown to be found. They were pro• bably better employed than in nursing into shape a deformed Marylebone abortion. At last, however, the Solicitor-General made his appearance, and leaned as heavily on the Home Secretary as he had leant on Mr. Wilson, for he declared that the bill supported by the noble lord was framed with an ad mirable disregard of everything that ought to be in it. The bill was an absurdity, and he hoped, as such, it would be rejected by the house. Mr. WALPOLE would have supported the object of this bill if he could believe that object would be attained, but he feared it was impracticable. Mr•