Glasgow Courier. — 1862-03-13 (Glasgow, Strathclyde, Scotland)

ATTORNEY-GENERAL said the question was one of policy, and could not be settled by her Majesty's Government except in ooncurrence with the other great Powers. The hon. member had correctly stated the natutt if the le* Which existed prior to 1856, and the character of the declaration of the Paris Conference. The law was perfectly clear and well understood, and was not open to the imputation of being.ill-defined, which the motion of the hon. member conveyed. The concession contained in the declaration of the Paris Conference was in favour of neutrals. The exception had no reference to neutrals at all, but was an exception and exemption which applied only to the subjects of a belligerent State. At present an enemy's goods might be carried in a neutral ship, and neutral goods might be carried, though no doubt at some inconvenience, in an enemy's ship; but the hon. member wished to establisk the principle that an enemy's ship, which under no circumstances were now protected, should be protected hereafter, so that in a time of war an enemy's vessel might carry her own goods between her own ports and the ports of the Power with which she was at war. That was a principle which would require serious discussion and careful consideration before it could receive the section of maritime Powers.  After some remarks from Mr Liddell, Mr B. Cochrane, and Sir G. Bowyer, Sir G. C. Lams admitted the deep importance or the question to a oountry situated like England, but trusted the House would not come to any precipitate resolution which they might find reason hereafter to repent. Even if Mr Horsfall succeeded in carrying the resolution, he would not effect his object. If he wished to establish the principle that an enemy's ship should be protected as well as an enemy's cargo on board a neutral vessel, he ought to have embodied his opinions in a resolution which fairly raised the whole subject. Nothing could be more inconvenient than questions of this nature upon abstract resolutions. He should be glad to learn from the hon. member how, in the event of war, they were to rely upon the honourable observance of an understanding of this description, when the very act of going ti war put an end to all treaties and engagements between the belligerent powers. Such an engagement would not be binding by international law, and would simply become a matter of honour or forbearance. Mr T. BARING expressed great astonishment at the speech of Sir G. Lewis. Until he heard it he believed  tEat the declaration of Paris was in force, but it now turned out that it was of no more value than the paper upon which it was writen. Sir G. LEWIS said the hon. member misunderstood him. What he meant to say was that the declaration had the force of a treaty, and was binding between this country and neutrals, but in the event of war, like all other treaties' would cease to have any binding effect as regarded two belligerent Powers. Mr BARING said the whole question was one which must necessarily be left in the hands of Government, and Mr Horsfall could not therefore be blamed if he had not introduced it in the shape of an address to the Crown. He regretted the decided opposition Sir G. Lewis had given to the resolution. Mr COBDEN moved the adjournment of the debate. Lord PALMERSTON, in assenting, said the principle, if carried into practice, would be a fatal blow to our naval supremacy, and would, indeed, be an act of political suicide. _ _  The debate was then adjourned till Monday. Mr H. SEYMOUR moved for a select committee to inquire into the present state of the Ecclesiastical Commission, and to report to the House whether the ecclesiastical revenues cannot be more advantageously administered for the interests of the Church than wasthe ease