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 goods," 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 and 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.