The Press. — London, England, 1858-06-05 00:00:00

THE OATHS BILL. THE position of the Jew question, at the present moment, is rather an anomalous one. We hear of no disposition on the part of the majority of the Lords to give way ; and the expressions used in Monday's debate only went as far as the ex pression of a general desire that sonic way out of the difficulty could be found. From the beginning, this agitation has been car ried on under cover of a masked battery. The same oath which contains the words really obnoxious to these gentlemen—viz., on the true faith of a Christian "—contains likewise the obsolete abjura tion of the pretensions of a Royal race which has been for sonic years extinct. To call on Members to abjure what has no existence is absurd ; but when this requirement is made in the shape of an oath, it clearly becomes highly irreverent and improper. The energy which the supporters of the Jews have spent in denouncing this portion of the oath has been very consider able. The pious horror, the utter disgust, that these gentlemen have expressed, at being called upon to take such an oath, has been very edifying to the bystanders, who when they saw the uplifted eyeballs, and heard the appeals to Heaven, naturally formed a very high opinion of the piety and conscientiousness of the speakers. This part of the oath, indeed, often served as their sole topic for declamation ; and the religious members of the Corporation of London actually petitioned Parliament for the entire repeal of this Oath of Abjuration, on the sole ground of its being a mockery to invoke the Deity to attest the deter mination of the swearer not to do that which was impossible. They made no allusion whatever in their petition to those words in the oath which prevented their Jewish member from taking his seat ; and (innocent creatures !) doubtless they were quite unaware that, if the whole oath were abolished, the excluding words would have been abolished with it.. Well, their friends in the House of Commons took the hint from them, and accordingly they brought in a Bill for abolishing the oath in its entirety—founding the expediency of that aboli tion, in their preamble, solely and exclusively on that indefensible part of the oath which had reference to the extinct family of JANtEs 11. It was then that Lord DERBY saw their fraud, and determined to turn their own weapons upon themselves. So he introduced a Bill in the House of Lords, taking every word of their preamble, but making the subsequent enactment strictly in conformity with the preamble. His enacting clause did not insert one single new word into the oath ; it simply struck out the words relating to JAMES 11. which were objected to in their com mon preamble. Great was the dismay of the Jew's friends when this Bill appeared. They felt that their battery was unmasked. They could no longer disparage the oath, as they had hitherto done, by appeals to the conscience against these obsolete clauses, for they had the opportunity offered them to get rid of them. Of that oppor tunity, however, they declined to avail themselves. The venerable Lord LYNIMIT . R.ST, the persevering and consistent advocate of his Jewish friends, appealed to Lord DERBY to withdraw it, on the ground of the lateness of the session ; and, as the Learned Lord had on a former occasion complied with a similar appeal of Lord DERBY'S, when he had a prospect of obtaining an unfair advantage, our Noble Premier very properly acceded to the request. The advocates of the expunged clauses have now the choice of waiting for some new mode of action, to be devised by Lord LYxpitungr, or of proceeding to violate and set at nought the ex ist lug law. Such a step would be nothing less than the reinauguration of the Long Parliament. As surely as it is adopted with success, so surely will it be the precursor of other and similar attempts. That it will (if tned) fail, utterly fail—that the law will ultimately triumph, we have not the smallest doubt ; but st.re we are that no member of the Conservative Government of Lord DERBY will do other than resist to the utmost such an encroachment on public liberty, and such an assault on the rights of the Crown and of the Peerage. Tft E PRESS, JUNE 6, 1658. Corrtsgoiaence. CONSERVATIVE REACTION. TO THE EDITOR OF " THE PRESS." Sir,—The recent debate on the Indian policy of Lord Ellenborough has, naturally enough, given rise to varied speculation on the part of those who closely watch English politics. Two important facts, however, stanl boldly forth amidst many theories. These are all-important. First, Lord John Russell and Lord Palmerston conspired to overthrow the present Ministry. Second, the progress of the debate in the Commons made it painfully apparent to those statesmen that the " Conservative Phalanx " had the control of Parliament. The circumstance of the union of Russell and Palmerston is evidence of the weakness of each separately ; thex failure, when united, is proof of the weakness of both. Turning from the Commons to the country, the Ellenborough despatch was popular. Plain men do not require to read Peffendorf to understand the principles et justice and humanity. Rightly or wrongly considered as a matter of Indian policy, the despatch of Lord Ellenborough was believed to maintain the highest principles of morality. In the future government of India, the popular mind will not readily reject those principles, and the despatch so obnoxious to the Parliamentary Opposition will 1),3 often referred to in connection with the future of India and England. The result of the recent debate is another proof of Conservative reaction. The mind of England is slowly but surely opening to the sense contained in the commonplace but expressive maxim, Ex nihilo nihil fit. "Nothing can come of nothing " is indeed, politically, among the least understood signs of the times. It becomes the Conservatives to profit by present circumstances, and to construct a practical policy fitted to the wants of the age. It is a palpable error to assume that there can exist only two systems of policy,—tbe one stationary, standing on the tradi tions of the past ; the other progressive, and run ning into the future without chart or compass. The past calls for that attention which wise men will always award to it—a consideration of its character. " Antiquity," says Bacon, " deserveth that reverence that men should make a stand thereon, and discover what is the best way ; but when the discovery is well taken, then to make progression." That maxim has been the rule of every wise statesman, without regard to party names. It is the only safe and possible rule of action for the present time, and contains in its richness and brevity the essence of Conservative pro• grass. The Conservative party require to strengthen their ranks, by uniting with those who have hitherto been separated from them because of public ques• lions now settled, and also to acquire new allies by showing a disposition to sympathize with the wrongs of the working men, and, so far as possible, to dis cover and apply remedial measures. That there is room for most desirable pract cal results in this respect there can b. r t no doubt. The irresistible facts of the Registrar-General prove that large towns are the graves of the human race : that the tendency of the population is to concentrate in these, is apparent to every observer. Those statesmen will deserve well ot• their country who can and will use their efforts to tirtigate the evils inseparable from the existence of large towns. It is well known that the workshop and the mine are but the too.successful competitors against the schoolmaster for the minds and bodies of the children of working men. So much so, indeed, that the beat friends of education despair of success, in the absence of some arrangements operating upon the conditions under which boys and girls shall be employed. Reform in Parliament has always been a favourite theme with the professedly " Liberal " schoel of politicians. It has been to them a lever of power ; there is no need for Conservative statesmen to evade the question. To take up such a subject for merely party purposes, or tor the sake of a fleeting popularity, would indeed be to trifle with a nation's interests, and traffic on a mendaciously-acquired con fidence; but to meet the difficulty of readjusting the electoral. system of the country, with a view to an equitable representation of all the principal interests —including among these the question of labour— would be to serve the present and future generations most effectually. The confidence of the people is the first and last requisite of government in a free State ; it is the only tru4wortliy basis of power. Happily, with the Conservative party this confidence is on the increase, as is cleatly nroved by their position. This proof of confidence is strengthened by the very objections of their opponents. " Oh r' say they, •• the Conservatives only hold place so long as they rule for the good of the country." Exactly so. Would such objectors have any Ministry to exist against the good of the country! These ignorant pretenders to patriotism prove rather too much . they indicate that they might prefer party at the cost of country—a policy which has sunk Whiggery and shallow "Liberalism " to zero, and lowered the character of British institutiocs much too seriously to be longer tolerated with impunity. There is related the inci dent of a Spanish bishop, who, when ambassador at he Court of Louis XIV. of France, was much troubled with certain Ministers of State, remarkable for their arrogance and want of comprehension, but who assumed to he the foremost men of their tine. " These politicians," said the Bishop, " have trader_ standings like the horns of the goats in my country— small, hard, and crooked." The Spanish ambassa dor~ words very aptly describe the character of tba leading opponents of a Conservative policy. Th e y have not the apprehension necessary to know how to rule an old country, nor that pliancy of dis9ositims requisite to allow others to be useful who are both able and willing to promote the nation's progress. —I am, sir, your obedient servant, May" 29, 1858. FAIR PLAY. THE BRITISH MUSEUM. TO THE EDITOR OF "THE PRESS." Sit.,—ln your fair and impartial accouht(PnEss of May 22nd) of Mr. Hosking's claim to the original: suggestion of the new reading•room and libraries at the British Museum, the following words occur : " Mr. Hosking, in rejoinder, draws attention to the, fact that Mr. Panizzi represented to Lord John Russell that the Builder was sent anonymously, and. asks how it was that his name came to be mentioned by Mr. Panizzi at all." I beg to state that I came to mention Mr. Hosking's name, on receiving in 1854 the article in the Builder, - because that article is headed, in capital letters, " Professor Husking's Project"—a circumstance which, I presume, Mr. Hoskins/ had forgotten when he put the question.—l am, sir, yours, obedieutly, A. PASIZZI. British Museum, May ;11, 1855. THE NAVY. TO THE EDITOR CF " THE PRESS." Sir,—h is an alarming fact that our merchant seamen cannot be induced to enter Iter M i kiesty' s service; and a commission has been appointed to devise the best means to remove the eau.sea that. prevent them volunteering their services. The (MU-. cuhy is one of the many legacies left by the late Government to the present Administration, and has. its origin in two causes—viz., the want of faith in the late Whig Board of Admiralty, and in the want of protection for the seaman by courts martial. During the war with Russia, their Whig lordships promised to grant a small pension and a discharge to those seamen who had completed ten years' servitude ; and how did their lordships fulfil this promise? Why, by discharging the men who had nearly completed their ten years, and retaining those who tiad recently: entered the fleet ! This wretched economy, this; unworthy trick of a Government laying claim to political purity, has produced a feeling of disttust amongst our seamen which it will be the duty of the present Admiralty to remove as soon as possible. It is admitted by sll officers of the navy that the appli cation of steam for the purpose of navigation iIAS it, a great measure paralyzed the right arm of Eng land, the navy ; that blockading an enemy's port is now impossible; and that manoeuvring under canvas is out of the question. The French are aware of this, anti in the Conetilutionnel published some time since I read as follows : Steam has restored equality on the sea, as soldiers can now fight as well as sailors on that element; and in fu•ore a few of the latter will be sufficient for the purpose of navigation, whilst the bsueries of our ships will be served, by experienced artillerymen. I am credibly informed that our neighbours, arty embarking experienced gunners iu their ships of war ; and I see no reason why we should not follow the example by embarking, as formerly, our soldiers on board cur lineof-battle ships. "To this complexion we must come at last." We live in critical times, and, although no alarmist,. I cannot lull myself to sleep by humming " Rule Britannia" while the wolf is at. the door.—l am,. sir, your obedient servant, ONE WHO HAS SERVED. Westbourne-crescent, June 2, 18 58. STATE OF THE COUNTRY. TO THE EDITOR OF " THE PRESS." Sir,-1 observe that Lord Granville attributes the reduction of the interest on Exchequer Bills to- "the improved state of the country," but he does not say improvement upon what. If he means to sav " improved" as compared with the state into which he and his colleagues had brought the country by their obstinate adherence to the fatal Bank Charter Act, we may admit it without any disparagement of' the present Government; but if ho means improve& as compared with the time when the last reign of the Whigs commenced, it is only another instance of the utter recklessness with which he and his pally make any assertion which they think likely to answer their purvioee—i.c., to help them into place again. I should like to collect a juzy of tradesmen to give their verdict on the state of the country. — Yours, obediently, June 2 1858. A LOVER Oks FALR FIkAY 111 584