The Press.
London, England, 1857-07-18 00:00:00

~7~

it has laid down to what he terms their legiti-
mate conclusion. What is their legitimate
conclusion ? Mr. LINDSAY says i t is that not
only private property in neutral vessels should
be protected, but that all private property of
every kind should enjoy the like privilege,
even though found in a hostile ship. His
notion of protecting from capture all private
property found on the ocean came first, we
may remind our readers, from the United
States. The Government of that country
refused to become a party to the Convention
of Paris, on the ground that privateering, like
slavery, was a domestic institution of the great
Republic. President PIERCE and Mr. MARCY
would not hear of tho abolition of letters of
marque; but, in a memorable despatch, of
which a good deal has been said, the last-
named gentleman informed the representa-
tives of France and England that if they
would consent to the proposition that all pri-
vate property on the ocean should be exe►npt
from capture, as private property is on land, he
would be willing to treat with them on that
broad ground. This proposition may or may
not have been sincere, but we do not believe
it could ever have been carried into effect.
lts principle was that private property
at sea should enjoy the same protection
during war as private property on land.
But when and where, we may ask, has private
property on land been spared by an invading
force ? We need not look to the practice of
former ages for an answer; we have only to
glance at recent and passing events. Was
private property spared at Greytown the other
day when it was wantonly subjected to the
horrors of a bombardment? Was private pro-
perty spared at Kertch after it was entered by
the allied troops? or at Canton, where, we
blush to say, express orders were given for the
destruction of the Governor's house? What,
then, is the meaning of the protection of
private property on hind, and when was it
protected in time of war in the presence of a
hostile force? We cannot tell. Mr. MARCY'S
note, however, was intended to amuse politi-
cians of Mr. LINDSAY'S stamp, and that it did
amuse them for a time is an instructive though
melancholy fact.
We are glad to perceive that Lord JOHN
RUSSELL has at length had the courage to
speak out boldly regarding the surrender of
our rights by the Paris Convention. He, too,
like Lord DERBY, complains that "no notice
" was given to the people of this country, or to
" either House of Parliament, that any such
" question should be discussed." But, while
denouncing the " Clarendon capitulation," he
informi us that we are nevertheless bound by
its disgraceful conditions. When the recog-
nised Leaders of the two great parties in the
State are of one accord upon a question of this
vital importance, surely some attempt might
be made to force the Government to explain,
and, if possil le, to justify its conduct.

COST OF l'llE PERSIAN EXPEDITION.
THE estimate of the " extraordinary expenditure" on
account of the expedition against Persia is 1,865,4351.,
the items being as follow—liz., 530,83,11., the amount
estimated by the Bombay Government from the Ist
of October, 1850, to the 30th of April, 1857 ; 53,7631.,
the amount estimated to be due to the Peninsular
and Oriental Company for transport service to the
30th of April last; 14,1641. paid in England for
clothing and provisions ; 35,5621. for further supplies
of clothing and provisions and for medical stores ;
370,1661, the amount estimated on account of the
reinforcements from the Ist of January to the 30th
of April, 1857 ; 120,000/. for further expenses to the
30th of April, 1857 ; 304,000/., the estimated charge
on account of European and native troops for May
and June, 1857 ; 364,0001., the estimated charge on
aeconnt of native troops left in occupation of Persia
or July, August, and September, 1857 ; and 3,917/.
r.r coals supplied by the Peninsular and Oriental
Company for the purposes of the expedition.