The Press. — London, England, 1858-03-20 00:00:00

averred. They have now discovered that the whole affair was a cheat and a delusion, and they trouble themselves little about it. As to the Protectionists in Parliament, their position was merely this—they questioned the desirableness of the change. They said, "If " bread is to be greatly cheapened, the farmers " will be ruined. That is undeniable. But if "this does not happen, and bread is not "cheaper, nor the farmers much injured, why "meddle with the law at all?" The political result, at last, is just what might have been expected, and what ought to happen. The main body of the Conservative party ob jected to the change. They have remained united, and in every emergency the Crown appeals to them for support. But the Liberals, the Free-traders, are detected cheats. They have imposed upon the people. They pro mised theta cheap bread, improved trade, di minished pauperism. Not one of these promises has been performed. Yet by these promises Lord JOHN RUSSELL acquired the Premiership, Mr. BRIGHT gained a seat for Manchester, and Mr. Con DEN got a good estate. If political lying was not by far too common, —if men would not be shocked at the thought of requiring a Member of Parliament to stand by his words, we should be amused to see the man of " unadorned eloquence " placed for an hour in the witness-box, and forced to main tain, or to recant, some of his most noted anti- Corn-Law speeches. averred whole a they trl As to positioi desirab " bread "will " this " chear " medd The I have be The rat jetted united, appeals the Fre have it wised t minishe has bee Lord Jc Mr. Ba Mr. Col If pol —if me of requ by his man of hour in tain, or Corn-Li TaE Monday it, a sort Lord J( promote sundry the nets Pope's I third pa who disk the Jew, likely t fourth r awearin, Lord Jc a farce have be it has b Four, fifth pa from at sent to who de disdain ROTtin Believe exalted b any office adruinist the true i tionality, whom, to] aloof, hi aninded the truth Aa Je - .1 what else are not o • our gods ayinpathi wish to fathers, the rest( it were, a few, th of the stt an actual revolves question the think the grave Mr. AN The fu the two I the point of the JE affliction all those are nece present v it in the but next • THE OATHS BILL. THE House of Commons is to witness, on Monday, if the other business does not hinder it, a sort of triangular duel on the Oaths Bill. Lord JOHN RUSSELL, on the first part, is the promoter. Opponents, on the second part, sundry Roman Catholic members, who dislike the new oath therein propounded for the Pope's humble servants. Opponents, on the third part, Mr. NEWDEGATE, and sundry others, who dislike the special exemption granted to the Jew. Between all three, the House is likely to be puzzled; and then comes in a fourth party—Mr. DUNCOMBE and some more, swearing that the whole affair is a sham ; that Lord JOHN is only acting the leading part in a farce; and that when the various parts have been played out, the House will find that it has been merely trifled with. Four, do we say? Positively, here comes a fifth party, with a view of the matter differing from all the other four. A pamphlet has been sent to us, written by a Mr. DAVID ANDERSON, who declares himself a Jew, and who proudly disdains the honour which is sought by Baron ROTHSCHILD. He thus writes : Believe me, it is a mistaken notion to imagine a Jew is exalted by a seat in the British Parliament ; let Lim take any office he pleases in the executive government, he is but administering laws already made, but so soon as he forgets the true destiny of Judaism, which, in itself, is interna tionality, and amalgamates himself with that people from whom, by the laws of his faith, he is bound to hold himself aloof, he meets but the merited contempt of all right minded Israelites, and the cold toleration of those who deny the truth of his religion. As Jeas, conscious of our own position and destiny, what else ought we to require at the hands of those who are not of our people, nor of our faith, whose gods are not our gods, and with whose hopes of eternal salvation our sympathies must ever remain wide asunder? If we have a wish to settle amongst them, forgetting the faith of our fathers, why do our prayers continually ascend to God for the restoration of our country? These prayers are not, as it were, shapeless, welling up unbidden from the bosoms of a few, the more patriotic of our nation, but they are one of the strongest essences of our belief, engrafted into, and an actual part of, our faith, the great centre around which revolves our thoughts, feelings, and aspirations; it is not a question to be lightly thought or spoken, but one to which the thinking part of the community will, I am sure, give the gravest consideration. Mr. ANDERSON tells us : The following is translated from the Hebrew service for the two first nights of Passover. It admirably illustrates the point in question, as well as the proverbial hospitality of the Jews one to nnother :—" Lo ! this is the bread of affliction which our ancestors ate in the land of Egypt, let all those who are hungry enter and eat thereof, and all who are necessitous come and celebrate the Passover. At present we celebrate it here, next year we hope to celebrate it in the land of Israel. This year we are servants here, but next year we hope to be freemen in the land of Israel." THE PRESS, MARCH 20, 1858. And I presume those Jews who are so eager to represent Englishmen in a British Parliament read this, and they will tell you believe in, and hope for such a consummation. Now, it appears to me if such is the case for Jews, they show a wonderful disregard of money and convenience, in being willing to take upon themselves the trouble and ex. pense of an election, when, according to their own showing, it is their heartfelt hope they may not be able to enjoy either the honour or the seal for more than twelve months. Let it be understood that these objections are raised in all kindliness of spirit, for it would be a cause of great grief to me, were 1 considered as one of those who are ungrateful to English people for benefits received, deeply sensible as I am of the spirit of liberality and enlighten ment pervading the breasts of thosse gentlemen who advo cate this cause in the British Legislature; nevertheless, let me here inform them of the opposition they are likely to meet from out the ranks of that nation whose liberty they think to consolidate by their advocacy. Not because Jews are disunited in their feelings of thankfulness, but because the more educated are aware that whatever is likely to sever class from close, must eventually be detri mental to a cause, the strength of which lies is its unity. Lastly, Mr. ANDERSON assures us that he is not peculiar in these opinions : These are the views of many of my people. The time has come when a warning voice should be raised, lest our people fade away from the wall. This is our argument, and these our reasons. As the individual exponent, seek ing no praise, I am prepared for opposition, asking but that toleration which I am at all times willing to concede; with God's blessing, I hope soon to see Jews of every class and country imbued with a strong sense of their own dignity and importance as a nation, and how little those qualities are augmented by disunion or indifference, which must be the inevitable result of Jews sitting as legislators in the British Parliament. We have some recollection of having hoard, on a former occasion, that Sir MOSES MONTE FIORE was not of the same mind on this matter with Baron ROTHSCHILD. And, in fact, the separate character which has always belonged to this ancient race, and the apparent proba bility, from many passages of Scripture, that they are still isolated from all other people, in order to their final return to their own land— these circumstances seem to favour Mr. ANDERSON'S view ; and we are not surprised to find him asserting that these are the hopes and expectations of " many of his people." THE DUKE OF CAMBRIDGE ON THE ARMY. THE speech of his Royal Highness the Duke of CAMBRIDGE on Wednesday last is distin guished by all that manliness and frankness for which the present Royal Family have always been famous. These qualities have made them favourites with the people, and we feel that his Royal Highness was perfectly justified in his declaration that he was " sure what ho said would be believed." The people of England, therefore, may now feel confident that they have at last arrived at an authentic source of information, and that the assertions of his Royal Highness afford a safe basis of investigation. We have toiled laboriously up the scale of knowledge, glean ing what we could from hearsay, from the public press, and from the " questions" of ac tive members of Parliament. We have formed such inductions as we could, and now at last we arrive, like the Platonic inquirer, at the top of the subject, and may prepare to descend it again by the infallible deductive process. The Duke of CAMBRIDGE is fully aware of the miserable barrack accommodation pro vided for our soldiers. He has spoken to the " proper persons," and the proper persons have told him that nothing can be done, for they had no money. We can well imagine his Royal Highness's indignation, compelled to administer a system, which his own feelings condemned, and to share the odium of mis management for which he was in no degree responsible. We can imagine his dis gust at seeing first the unmistakeable dissa tisfaction of the people at this ill-judged parsi mony, and then at being told that the repre sentatives of the people would do nothing to remove it. We do not wonder at his seizing the opportunity of clearing his own character, and of placing the issue entirely out of his TIM 267 own hands. The fact is, it would be difficult to find a better instance of those " shams'' which too often result from our present system of government. The people are nut averse to granting their money. All experience shows that. Public men are not averse to spending it. All experience shows that too. In this particular instance, there was no doubt about the propriety of the object of expendi ture ; and yet, alter all, owing to a system of official mystification, the money is not forth coming. No doubt low estimates are popular with the country ; but we are a businesslike people, and have epitomised the mischief of false economy into a national proverb. We are also a generous people, and never object to the enjoyment of comforts, and even luxu ries, by our servants, whether public or pri vate. The House of Commons has frequently objected to the maintenance of larger standing armies than the circumstances of the day seemed to warrant. But that assembly would never have denied the necessity of furnishing whatever force we maintained, with all necessary appliances. A small but efficient army was, a few years ago, all the country really required, and it would have been far better to have reduced its nume rical strength even still further than to have impaired its physical energies by unnecessary exposure and unwholesome accommodation. It is easy to understand why of the two things number should have been preferred to condi tion. Improved barracks do not give more commissions, or in any way increase the Ministerial patronage. And when the two in terests clash, we do not require to be told which will go to the wall. The whole case is really very bad indeed. The disgusting system which has so lately been exposed must have been perfectly well known for years. It is clear that the Commander-in- Chief is not to blame for these abominations. Who then is it? Let him or they be dragged into the daylight. Truth, it is said, lies at the bottom of a well. In this case we fear it is at the bottom of a cesspool. But we must have it out. The people cannot rest under the imputation that the sanitary welfare cf the soldiers has been sacrificed to the popular enthusiasm for libraries and reading-rooms. We know there is a great deal of cant about the educational zeal of the age. We have no more faith than our neighbours, perhaps less, in the efficacy of mechanics' institutes, and all that savours of the same. But we believe that barrack reading-rooms do good, and, above all, we believe that the people intended them to be an unqualified boon to the army. It is most unfair to turn round upon them, as " the proper persons " seem to have done, and charge them with having purposely cur tailed the soldier's comforts to carry out their own hobby. This is like the master who gives his servant a holiday, and then stops it out of his wages. The fact is, no doubt, as his Royal Highness states it to be, and we are certain that if he had his own way it would very speedily be altered. What we have a right to complain of is this, that the country was not warned of the truth earlier. If any Minister had come down to Parliament, and said that he knew how desirsble economy was, but that there were certain gross deficiencies in our military arrangements with which the people should be made acquainted, and that they would then determine whether anything should be done or not, can we doubt what the answer would have been? Instead of this, it has been the practice of late years to bolster up accounts ; to make a mystery of the merest trifles ; and then to accuse the people of parsimony, when their only fault was they did not like to pay in the dark. The people had a general notion that our military e2c- penditure might be lowered, but they never intended to rob the grenadier of his washing bason. Had the question been represented to them in its true light, they would not have hesitated for a moment. But they naturally did not dream that while providing aliment for the soldier's mind, they could be supposed capable of wishing to perpetuate indecencies which must neutralise all the good effects of mental culture.