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

THE PRE S S, JULY 18, 1857.

as much a friend as the other Powers of
Europe, and we should not have been "ender-
" vouriny for ever to raise up jealousy and suspi-
" cion"—an arrowy stroke which struck the
target aimed at. The Noble Lord skilfully
put aside the rough-and ready logic with
which Sir FENWICK WILLIAMS tlial to settle
the question. It is in military and not Par-
liamentary defence that the Gallant Member
for Caine excels. Logical " short-cuts " (as
Lord JOHN called them) are extremely dan-
gerous things in presence of trained debaters.
Mr. GLADSTONE spoke with great ability,
and emphatically stated the question raised
by Mr. ROEBUCK'S resolution " was one
"of extraordinary gravity and interest."
The Member fur the University of Oxford
declared that " the principle of constitu-
" tional liberty had greatly retrograded,"
and the Right Hon. Gentleman ex-
posed in detail the conflicting views and
uncertain policy of the Cabinet. Mr. GLAD-
STONE echoed the opinions of many astute
politicians when he declared hi ; scepticism as
to the enormous and world-wide importance
of the possession of Herat. The wisdom of
declaring to Europe that the object of Russia
was the destruction of our Indian empire
through Affghanistan, was judiciously pro-
tested against by the Right Hon. Gentleman ;
but the part of his address which told most on
the House of Commons was the emphatic
admonition which Mr. GLADSTONE delivered
on the necessity of Parliament expressing a
decided opinion against a Minister availing
himself of the medium of the Indian army, the
Indian finance, and the Indian Executive, to
make and conclude war on his own account,
without the consent of the House of Com-
mons. This part of Mr. GLADSTONE'S speech
was vehemently cheered by both sides of the
House of Commons.

Lord PALMERSTON never appears to worse
advantage than in attempting to sum up a
debate. He has no talent for judicial charges;
and he cannot, like Sir It. PEEL or Lord J. Rus-
SELL, go round the House, and say something
to every one. No public speaker leaves greater
gaps in his addresses, and he did not debate
the Persian war on Thursday night. His
speech was, therefore, what we would have ex-
pected from the known character of the man.
It was a string of asseverations, not a series of
answers. Some of the best speeches of the
night were left unnoticed : and with dogged
manner, and something to excess of that "Par-
liamentary assurance" once imputed to the
Noble Viscount by Sir R. PEEL. the Premier
said his course was all right, and he said it so
often that we could have wished that he would
have condescended even to vary the language.
In " constitutional knowledge" Lord PAL..
MERSTON is no proficient. He took a high pre-
rogative tone in denying the alleged doctrine
that the Crown had no right to make war
without the consent of Parliament. The Crown
certainly can make war, but where is it to get
the supplies ? Is the consent of Parliament
not necessar3 for the estimates ? Such a line
of argument was really puerile. No one denied
the rightful prerogative of the Crown ; but the
policy of making war first in a secret and
sudden way, told then coming to Parliament
for aid, stands condemned by the general
opinion of the House of Commons and the
country. But Lord PALmEasToN thinks that
he is a greater man by affecting the tone of a
dictator.

Mr. DISRAELI'S brief and brilliant reply to
the Premier was in his happiest manner.
The rapidity with which the Right Hon.
Member for Bucks saw the opening left by
the Prime Minister's indiscreet allusion to
Mr. ROEBUCK'S alleged " un-English resolu•
Lions," marked a consummate master of
Parliamentary fence. " Was the resolution for
" inquiry into the state of the army before
" Sebastopol un-English ?" asked Mr. DisakEm;
and the Right Hon. Gentleman followed up
the point by dexterous allusions to the Pacifico
debate, while his political warning to the
young members of the House was executed
in a spirit of rich humour, mingled with elfec
tive political sepal tee.
Circumstanced, however, as the House of
Commons was, we do not think that it
possibly could have affirmed Mr. ROEBUCK'S
resolutions. But the debate had great use. It ex-

691

posed the unprincipled way in which Lord
PALMERBTON conducts his diplomacy, and it
registered the dangers run from being ruled
by a statesman whose position is purely per-
sonal, and who is a neutral in party. The
damaging effect of the debate is seen in the
candid confession of a leading Ministerial
organ of Friday—" We do not dispute the
" Royal Prerogative, but we do dispute the
" very (lark, precipitate, awl irresponsible way in
" which it is occasionally exercised."
Stronger language we could not have em-
ployed.

THE CLARENDON CAPITULATION.
WE are glad to see that the disgraceful sur-
render of our maritime rights by the late
Treaty of Paris has once more occupied the
attention of Parliament. That surrender was
unprecedented in the history of diplomacy.
Lord CLARENDON was sent to Paris to negotiate
a treaty of peace with the representatives of
the other belligerent Powers A treaty of
peace, such as it is, was the result—an
honourable, nay, a triumphant treaty for
England, as we were then assured by the
Queen's Ministers. And yet into this treaty,
which terminated, in the language of our
rulers, " a great and successful war," there
was introduced a condition expressly designed
for the humiliation of the British flag and
the overthrow of our maritime supremacy.
Lcrd CLARENDON, without the knowledge of
the nation, without the consent of Parliament,
deliberately renounced those naval rights
which for the space of five centuries England
had maintained against the world. Up to the
commencement of the late war no British
statesman of any party had ever doubted the
necessity of maintaining these rights. They
were universally held to be essential, not only
to our maritime greatness, but to our national
independence. They were in strict conformity
with the law of nations. From time imme-
morial we had claimed and exercised the right
of seizing the goods of an enemy in a neutral
ship. That right no longer exists. It was
signed away behind the nation's back by Lord
CLARENDON at Paris. Whether this secret
renunciation, overturning, as it did, the
common law of the land, was binding upon
Parliament and the nation, is a question which
we shall not now discuss. Suffice it to say
that the national faith is pledged, and it
cannot now be broken without furnishing
a cause of war to all the States that were
parties to the Treaty of Paris. This is the
practical result of " the Clarendon capitulation,"
as it was too truly termed by Lord DERBY
when its conditions were first made public.
Let not the nation be deluded by cant phrases
about enlightenment and progress. Its pre-
sent, rulers have thrown away a mighty weapon
of offence which cannot be resumed without
provoking universal war.
" It was done in the dark," exclaimed Lord
DERBY, " without the knowledge of Parlia-
" 'neut. We knew not when our birthright
" was given away." We know it now, however;
and our merchants, for whose especial benefit
it is to be presumed that the rights in ques-
tion were renounced, are beginning to calcu-
late the results in the event of another war.
Mr. LINDSAY brought the matter before the
House of Commons on Tuesday night. That
gentleman is a large shipowner, and ho per-
ceives, after taking a whole twelvemonth to
consider the matter, that the effect of the rule
laid down by the " Clarendon capitulation"
will be simply to render British shipping
useless in the event of another war. And
why? Because neutral vessels, being exempted
from capture, will undoubtedly be preferred.
It will, therefore, be necessary to insure
British vessels at a ruinously high rate, which
will practically give a monopoly of our carry-
ing trade to the foreigner. Such is the argu-
ment of Mr. LINDSAY, and so far we entirely
agree with him ; for the opinion he now
expresses is that which has all along been
advJcated by this journal.
But he has discovered, which we confess
we have not, a remedy for the evil in question.
He would not annul the Convention of Paris;
on the contrary, ho would carry out the rules