The Press. — London, England, 1854-07-08 00:00:00

.. 630 sorbed in providing for the indispensable services and ministers of the Protestant Church. On this point Sir J. Young entered into some elaborate cal culations, and contended that while the bill, on one hand, would deprive 395 parishes of all ecclesiastical instruction, it would utterly fail on the other in securing the surplus revenue which it pretended to distribute. The measure he believed to be wholly uncalled for, and calculated to weaken the Church without satisfying the people of Ireland. Mr. J. O'CoNNELL repudiated the idea of finality in regard to the subject of the Irish Church, declaring that so long as the people suffered under injustice on that account the Legislature should hear of it. For himself, however, he declared that, as an advocate of voluntaryism, he must oppose the bill. Mr. NAPIER asserted that the object of the measure was to destroy the Church of Ireland. He then ex amined in detail the statements and figures out of whilh Mr. Sergeant Shea had compiled the surplus he designed to transfer from the Protestant clergy to Roman Catholic priests. Declaring that this surplus was altogether imaginary, Mr. Napier argued upon principle that the Church iu Ireland should be preserved on the same basis as that of England. The Church establishment was interwoven with the constitution, and could not be touched without perilling alike the safety of the State and the interests of religion. Mr. MAGUIRE dwelt upon the vast disproportion between the Roman Catholic and the Protestant in habitants of Ireland. The church accommodation provided for the latter, he urged, was far greater than they could use, and large sums were expended upon it uselessly. Being also a voluntaryist, he must, how ever, vote against the bill. Mr. HAMILTON complained of Mr. Shee's exaggera tions, and said that instead of deriving his statistics from authentic documents or parliamentary returns he had reproduced the statements made in his own publications. Sir J. FITZGERALD supported the bill. Mr. LUCAS considered the motion before them in trinsically of little interest, believing that the bill would be quite ineffectual in settling the Irish Church difficulty. He proceeded to discuss the moral hear. ing and stringency of the parliamentary oath taken by Roman Catholics, and urged, in reply to objections made in a previous debate, that he was not thereby debarred from taking a part in discussions upon such questions as the present. Contending for the volun tary principle in the strictest sense, he recommended the Irish Catholics to give up the Maynooth grant ; and then entered into acme statistical computations in order to confute a statement made by Mr. Napier, that by the recent emigration the Catholics in Ireland had diminished in larger pr' ortion than the Pro testants. Mr. M'lllAaos cited historical evidence to prove that tithes had always been considered in Ireland a badge of foreign domination. There would be no peace for that country, he argued, until that grievance was removed. Mr. A. STAFFORD opposed the bill, believing that it would be looked upon as a great victory for Rome, and inflict a serious blow on the Irish Protestant establishment. Six o'clock being now at hand, the adjournment of the debate was moved by Mr. KENNEDY, and, in spite of opposition, agreed to by the house. THE LAW OF NEUTRALS. A resolution was offered to the Commons on Tues day by Mr. J. G. I'mutmoez, inviting the house to declare that although, under the circumstances of the present war, it may be justifiable to relax the principle that the property of an enemy in the ships of a friend is lawful prize, yet that any absolute sur render or renunciation of that right would be incon sistent with the honour and security of the country. He cited very numerous authorities, dating from the earliest times, and including writers of many dif• ferent countries, to support the two principles of international law, that the goods of an enemy in the ship of a friend ought to be confiscated, and that the goods of a friend in the ship of an enemy ought to be respected. In practice he cited a number of instances to show that in all wars the guiding prin ciple had been to do mischief to the enemy by all means and weapons within reach, and then contro verted the maxim—which he pronounced to be equally modern in origin and injurious in effect—. that "free bottoms made free goods." The resolution was seconded by Mr. MITCHELL, who thought, however, that the exceptional reference to " presence circumstances" had better have been omitted. The most effectual means of attacking Russia was to stop her traffic, and he regretted to find that this process was so long delayed and so imperfectly accomplished. Sir W. Moi.eswoere, in a most elaborate argu ment, drew a distinction between the theoretical position and the practical conclusion contained in the resolution presented to the house. The former laid down the doctrine that it was the inalienable right of a belligerent to seize the property of an enemy in the ship of a friend. This right, he re- THE PRESS. marked, was dated from the most barbarous eras, and supported on the authority of Grotius, Vattel, and other writers upon international law, many of whose dicta had been rendered obsolete by the ad vancing humanity of modern times. Besides the rights of the belligerents, there were the rights of neutrals to be considered; and these included the free prosecution of their commerce, except as regarded articles contraband of war, or places actually under siege or blockade. After supporting this theoretical assumption by a copious array of arguments and instances, Sir W. Molesworth addressed himself to the practical question of " political expediency." He contended that the relaxations lately enacted by the British Government in favour of neutrals were both right and expedient. To have withheld them might possibly have inconvenienced our enemy, but must have outraged our friends and injured our commerce in a far larger proportion. Even if reasonable doubts might be entertained upon the question of abstract right, the house ought not to pledge itself to an asser tion of the right contended for, and he insisted that there was no logical connection between the rules "free ships, free goods," and " enemy's ships , enemy's goo ds," which were placed in juxtaposition as a mere verbal antithesis. Assuming that the po sition of Mr. Phillimore were true the house, he contended, ought not to agree to this abstract reso lution, unless some practical benefit would result from its adoption. None had been shown, and the waiving a right, if it existed, was no renunciation or surrender of it. The right hon. baronet concluded by moving the previous question. Mr. R. PHILLIMORE concurred in thinking the pre sent waiver of the belligerent right by the British Government to have been judicious. He denied, however, the assertion of Sir William Molesworth, that the right in question was founded upon a barbarous usage, and had become obsolete. He remarked also that much discrepancy existed between the argu ments of the right hon. baronet and the declaration lately issued under her Majesty's hand on the subject of neutral ships, as the latter merely waived the as sertion of " rights " which the former made out to be clearly " wrong." Mr. 8.. Phillimore then ex pressed much surprise that Sir W. Molesworth should have taken his interpretation of international law from treaties instead of jurists and commentators, and observed that if his doctrines were correct they would prevent any interference of a belligerent except with a belligerent, and lead to the practical absurdity of a military war and a commercial peace. The principles of the law of nations, which Sir Wil liam had endeavoured to overset, were founded on reason. equity, and convenience, and fortified by authority. Nevertheless he did not think it expedient to press the resolution, which he recommended the proposer to withdraw. The house, however, settled the matter in another way. Mr. BOWYER was preparing the way by argu ment for an amendment of which he had given notice, setting forth " that the course adopted by her Majesty's Government, in concert with that of the Emperor of the French, is in accordance with sound principles of policy an d public law," when the house, which had gradually thinned during Sir W. Moles worth's speech, was " counted out." THE DOWNING-STREET BUILDINGS. The recent division of the hitherto-united Secre tarysbips of War and the Colonies has involved the necessity of finding an official residence for the new War Minister and proper accommodation for his staff of clerks. For this purpose it has been proposed to remove the Enclosure Commissioners from their house in Whitehall-gardens, which is to be taken possession of by the Secretary of State for War, and the commissioners are in their turn to find a new locale in St. James's-square. The Earl of MALMESBURY on Monday called the attention of the Peers to this project, which he censured as being inconvenient, expensive, and unnecessary. In the course of his address the noble earl gave some curious information respecting the public utility which the Enclosure Commissioners had been able to serve, and which would be much interrupted, if not in great measure sacrificed, by the proposed removal " This office was one of the most useful and most effi ciently managed and arranged of our great public offices. It contained within its walls upwards of .50,000 documents of the greatest importance, and, among other papers, had about 20,0(X) maps, all of which had been drawn up at the office of the Enclosure Commissioners, and were in every way carefully arranged, and correct even to the most minute particulars. The public might visit that office when they pleased, and in a few minutes conld see for a shilling any of these maps, and for five shillings could have any one of the maps traced, and thus obtain for a trifling sum what they could not in many instances other wise obtain, except at a cost of 701. or NM (Hear, hear.) There were also most important documents in the office of the Enclosure Commissioners respecting the changes which had taken place under the Enclosure Act, the operations under which were now very simple and mode rate, as a proof of which he could mention that in many cases the average expense of the office fees for the ex change of an estate amounted only to 41. There were other department. of the budding set apart for the custody SATURDAY ; of original documents and papers of great public import• ance with respect to drainage and other matters connected with the Enclosure Estate Aot, which it had taken many months to arrange in their present excellent order. For these reasons he had heard with great regret the rumour that the Enclosure Commissioners were to be turned out and put into a house in St. James's-square. In that case all the documents would have to be moved out from the places where they were now deposited and so well arranged, and would have to be stored again in some new place and be aga.n arranged. While the operation was taking place it would be absolutely impossible that the public business could be carried on as usual, or for the public to make use of the documents in the office in the same way as they did now, at least for some considerable time, so that very great inconvenience would be felt in every way, and business of great importance checked and interfered with. It would be at least a year or eighteen months before any new office could be properly fitted up for the Enclosure Commis sioners, and before the documents could be put in order and arranged. If this were simply a question us to White hall-gardens or St. James's-square, there was little doubt that it would be much less inconvenient to send the new Secretary of State to St. James's-square than to remove the Enclosure Commissioners from their present house, and he believed the greatest mischief would follow if an endea vour were made to pull to pieces this important office, which it had taken so much time to arrange in proper order, and to make it iu every way so thoroughly efficient as it undoubtedly was. (Hear, hear.)" Lord Malmesbury afterwards adverted to the condi tion of the Foreign-office in an architectural point of view. This he declared to be disgraceful. In Can ning's time the business of the office did not exceed 7 or 8,000 despatches per annum, but was now 33,000, while no extra accommodation was pro vided for the increased staff' rendered necessary by this multiplicity of affairs. There were also no pro per reception-rooms, although the diplomatic corps now comprised nearly one hundred persons, and in terviews were often held between the Foreign Secre tary and personages of royal dignity. The edifice was also out of repair. The chief apartment could not be considered safe unless it was propped up, and the ceiling in the Secretary's own room fell down two years since. The Earl of ABERDEEN said that the office of the Enclosure Commissioners had been fixed upon for the new War Ministry because it was considered on the whole the most convenient : " It was of great importance that the office of the Secre tary Or War should be in the immediate neighbourhood of Downing-street and the Horse Guards. There were only two buildings which could comply with that condition — the building called Gwydyr-house, and that in which the Enclosure Commissioners carried on their business. Gwydyr-house was occupied by the Poor Law Commission, which was in constant communication with the Home office, and it would have been extremely inconvenient to remove that office to any distance. With the Enclosure Commissioners there was not the same inconvenience. Of course, any removal must be attended, more or leas, with evils. He had not himself seen it, but he had no doubt that the description given by the noble earl of the manner in which all documents were arranged in the Enclosure office was perfectly accurate. At the same time, he could not believe that it would require two years to rearrange those documents in a proper manner. He should have thought that two months would be more likely than two years. That was a mechanical operation which certainly could be performed, with care, without any very great in jury to the documents, and with no danger whatever." As to the Foreign-office building, the Premier was aware, from personal experience, of its discreditable and dangerous condition. Plans for a new edifice were in preparation, but the Government could not think of asking Parliament for a vote of money on that account this year. The Earl of ELLENBOROUGH considered that 70 or 80,0001. might be much better spent in prose cuting the war than in building a new Foreign-office. Lord REDESDALE remarked upon the dispersion of the public offices, and said that, considering the amounts paid for rents and enlargements, it would be real economy to erect a building adequate to accommodate all the most important departments, after the model of the ministerial " hotels" in Paris. Some remarks upon the state of other public buildings, and especially of the common-law courts at Westminster, were offered by Lord CAMPBEI.I. and Lord Sr. LEONARD'S. The subject afterwards dropped. THE ECCLESIASTICAL COURTS. Mr. WALPOLE on Tuesday inquired into the Go vernment intentions respecting the various bills in troduced, or promised, which affected the jurisdiction of the ecclesiastical courts. He wished especially to learn whether the Testamentary Jurisdiction Bill would be proceeded with this session. Lord J. Russ ELI, announced the result of his con sultation with the Lord Chancellor on this subject:— " The Lord Chancellor had introduced into the House of Lords a bill on the subject of divorce ; but as regarded church discipline no bill had been introduced, and that was a matter which must receive the consideration of the Go vernment. There was much difference of opinion with regard to the nature of the court to which matters of this kind should be referred : whether it should be a branch of the Court of Chancery, or a separate court, though not together resembling the ecclesiastical courts. Considering r