The Press. — London, England, 1858-07-24 00:00:00

Mr. CLAY avowed that he had advised the delay of l e claims until after the termination of the war. The motion was supported by Mr. Msuris and Mr. fir. CRAWFORD made a brief reply, and, upon a i v i s ian, the motion was negatived by 105 to 55. On the order for the second reading of the Con lidated Fund (Appropriation) Bili, Sir H. WILLOUGHBY called attention to the neces ,ity of introducing into the bill some limit to the pow er of the Commissioners of the Treasury to alter the appropriation of the public money as agreed on y the house. The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER, at that late hour, deterred his reply—which would show, he said, hat Sir H. Willoughby was very much mistaken — until the committee upon the bill. The bill was read a second time. The Clerk of Petty Sessions (Ireland) Bill passed through committee. The Government of New Caledonia Bill was read third time and passed. Other bills were advanced a stage. On the order for the third reading of the Jews ill, moved by Lord J. RUSSELL, Mr. NEWDEGATE moved that the debate be ad journed ; but the motion was negatived. The order was ultimately postponed till Wed nesday. The remaining orders huviog been disposed of, le house adjourned at a quarter past two o'clock. HOUSE OF LODI)S—WEDNEti DAY. Their lordships at for a short Limo to day in order forward several bills. The Enclosure of Lands Bill and the Legitimacy Declaration Bill were read a second time. The Public Health Bill was also read a second ime. The third reading of the Government of India Bill, hich stood for this day, was postponed until Friday. Several bills were read a first time, after which their lordships adjourned. HOUSE OF COMMONS—WEDNESDAY. TRANSPORT OP TROOPS —SIR DE "ACT EVANS. The house was occupied for some time with a matter of a pers -nal nature, brought under its notice Lord Godericb, a member of the Select Committee the Transport of Troops to India, who complained . the conduct of the chairman of the committee, Sir De Lacy Evans, in circulating, as be alleged, privately and secretly, a document containing not mly criticisms upon the proceedings of the corn. :ittee, but a charge against himself (Lord Goderich) and others members of the committee who had dif• fered from the chairman, that they had been actuated • a desire to screen the late Administration from censure. Lord GODERICH, though in temperate terms, strongly censured the course taken by Sir De Lacy, . wanting in common fairness to those whom he accused, ant on their behalf and his own distinctly denied the charge. Sir DE LACY EVANS insisted that there bad been no secrecy in the circulation of the document, but expressed his sorrow if he had transgressed forms. 'le disclaimed the imputation of any unworthy motives to Lord Goderich and his colleagues, though le admitted that be did ascribe to them an amiable and a generous desire to assist their friends. The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER observed that Sir De Lacy Evans had committed an act which was not only very irregular, but. was one of considerable impropriety. At the same time, as be had expressed is regret, and as Lord Goderich had fully and coin• pletely vindicated himself and his colleagues, he recommended that the conversation shJuld not be prolonged. This suggestion was adopted, and the subject, which threatened to absorb a large portion of the sitting, after a few remarks by Lord GODERICH, was allowed to drop. The Smoke Nuisance Abatement Bill, the Members Freedom from Arrest Bill, and the Church rates Commutation Bill, were withdrawn. The Medical Profession and Medical Corporations Bill was read a second time. The Cornwall Submarine Mines Bill and the De• tacked Parts of Counties Bill were read a third time and passed. Mr the CI Th ? R ic fili divisi Ot solid Si city r owi the by tl TI hour that anti T T tbro T a th 0 0 MII jou' T nes, the 1' toff T Dec T tim' T whi, thei T mat by on t of I Sir priv onlj mit and fere by cen I. stra as acci den S no exp He mol he and Sir not in)/ his plei reci pro 1 whi situ alk Me rat Bi tac an On di , foi th go he in THE PRESS, JULY 24, 1858. other house, to commit an absutdity itself, and to insult those wilo were the objects it proposed to relieve, the ingenuity of man could nit devise a measure that would more fully auswer those pur. poses. Mr. T. DUNCOMBE did not think the bill so despicable as some deemed it, although it did come from the Lords, for whom and for Llri Derby he suggested some apology in this matter. Mr. NEWDEGATE said : The hon. and learned member for Sheffield said that the House of Lords had written itself down an ass, because that house has declared with reference to the present, and with reference to various measures which have from time to time been forced upon it, that they were dangerous to the constitution of the country. I hope that the hon. and learned gentleman will some day state to the house what he understands to be the con• stitution of this country, for I have sat in this house several years with the hon. and learned gentleman, and heard him defend many kinds of innovation as consistent with the con stitution of the country; and I hope we shall hear some day the impression of the hon. and learned gentleman of what the constitution of England is, and on some other day what he thinks it ought to be. The hon. and learned gentleman receives every concession with contumely, and constantly complains that the House of Lords do not yield to these arrogant demands in a spirit of sufficient humility. I regard this measure as a concession wrung from the Blouse of Lords contrary to their judgment, and be cause it is contrary to their judgment I think their lordships ought. to have rejected it. (Cheers.) Therefore Ido not defend the House of Lords ; neither do I defend the conduct of Lord Derby, because I know that the mea sure is in principle contrary to his opinions, and that being so, he ought to have appealed to the country. •The intention of the framers of the bill is to give the country time to reflect, which amounts to a tardy recognition of the fact that the country ought to have been appealed to. I do not consider it unworthy of the dignity and wisdom of the House of Lords that, after having resisted your assaults for years, they should now send down to you the reasons for their resistance, ►which reasons, in my opinion, are amply sufficient to have justified an appeal to the country upon the subject. I can say nothing in condemnation of the principle of this bill, as destruc tive of the Christian character of this house, that I have not already ventured to state, but I will not sit silent by and hear blame hespei upon Lord Derby, without stating my knowledge of the difficulties to which he is exposed. ( Hear, hear.) IA ho is the main promoter on this side of the house of this infraction of the Christian character of Parliament? Why, sir, the Chancellor of the Exchequer. (Hear, hear.) The Chancellor of tie Exchequer, himself of Jewish extraction, festers towards the Jewish race a feel ing of sympathy so ardent that you may trace it through out all his works of fiction, and especially will you find it declared, honestly enough, in the chapter relating to the Jews which he has interpolated in his " Biography of Lord George Bentinck." (Hear, hear.) In that chapter the right hon. gentleman claims as a right that the Jewish race shall govern the other races of mankind; he claims for them that supremacy whilst they remain in their pre sent state of rebellion against their own true King. The right hon. gentleman in this chapter endeavours to recon cile Judaism with Christianity. He tells us plainly that our blessed Lord came to expiate, but not to teach. He declares that the doctrines of the New Testament are the same as those of the old ; but he then proceeds on the false assumption that Judaism is the true religion of the Old Testament; and justifies the Crucifixion. Hear, hear.) When I find seated in a leading position on the Ministerial Bench amongst the members of the party who acknowledge Lord Derby as their leader a right hon. gentleman who holds such opinions as these, using all his influence to carry them into effect, I will not allow Lord Derby's diffi culties on this question to be underrated. (Hear, hear.) I have watched with the closest attention the progress of this subject for years. One by one I have seen several leading members of the Conservative party brought over to the opinions of the Chancellor of the Exchequer— ( Hear, hear)—and when the noble lord who is at the head of the India Board seceded from his noble father's opinions on the question, and adopted those of the Chancellor of the Exchequer, I felt that Lord Derby's position might eventually become intolerable—that there was great danger that the noble earl would eventually be forced to abandon the proud position which he has held for so many years as leader of that great party, whose pnde and honour it is to be the defenders of the Christian character of Par 1 anent and of the State. (Hear, hear.) In my anger I will have justice. I will not hear in silence the ditficul ties of Lord Derby undervalued. (Cheers.) The house know that I am sincere upon this question— ( cheers )—and I thank them for the patience with which they have listened to these observations. Perhaps, hon. members will pardon we if, when I see them urged forward in a course of which this measure is only one of the steps, I address to them a few words of warning. I know there are many gentlemen op posite who value as highly as I do the Protestant Chlistian religion of this country, who value the freedom of our Constitution, who are not willingly renegades from the principles of the Revolution of 1688. Now I beg them to consider that they have to contend with an element which is now all-powerful throughout almost the whole of continental Europe, which is making constant and steady advances, and whose power is daily felt mon- and more even within the charmed ci►cle of :he freedom of these British isles. I allude to the Jesuit Confederation. I always watch with interest the events which occur in Holland, ' our nearest Protestant neighbour on the Continent. Only two years ago the Roman Catholic bishops of Holland, in L their remonstrance against the doctrine of the Immacu late Conception, declared emphatically that that doctrine, 713 and its enunciation from the Papal Chair, were the work of the Jesuits, who are all-powerful at Rome. I adduce that .as evidence of the existence of the Order ; for, strangely enough, I have heard hon. members say,— " Jesuits ! there is no such Order in existence." Upon the authority of the Roman Catholic bishops of Holland, I assert that it exists, that it is dominant at Rome. (Hear, hear.) Some gentlemen are disposed to believe that the Jesuit never professes liberality. Now, I ask them not to believe me, but to believe the ablest advocates of the Order—to believe be I.ammenaie, Le Maistre, and Montalembert. The latter expressly states that about two hundred years ago the Jesuits made a great change in their policy towards this country. In his work, " L'Avenir d'Aogleterre "—the future political history of England — Count Montalembert tells us that this experiment was first tried in our then colony of Maryland in 1632 ; and we have the evidence that it was also tried in England in the proclamation of James 11. in 1687, which the seven bishops refused to read, and fur refusing to read which they were sent to the Tower, an act which was followed by the expulsion of James 1;. and the family of the Stuart.. (Hear, beat.) Now, what was that proclamation? What was that experiment? It was precisely in the spirit and sense in which you now legislate for this country. ( Hear, hear.) It was to abrogate every religious test—to declare that, practically, religion has nothing to do with civil ad ministration—that men of all creeds are equally fitted for legislation and for the service of the State. That procla mation was issued at the instance of Jesuit councillors. Trace the whole course of that Order in free countries. You will find of late years that its frequent practice is to exaggerate liberty into license, thus to break down every safeguard for freedom, whether civil or rdigious, knowing full well that their own wonderful organization, if brought to operate against undefended freedom, must ultimately work its destruction. (Cheers.) Count Montalembert, writing two years ago, seems literally to dictate the course which Roman Catholics pursue at the present day. They loin the Liberal party—they declaim against every safe guard of true liberty—they claim civil and religious equality ; and, under tile influence of this organization, ;;punt Montalembert implies that eventually this free country will be subjugated to the despotism of Rome. ( Hear, hear.) I have heard hon. members of the modern school of Liberalism declare every safeguard against that despotism an absurdity. I trust the house will forgive me if I warn Liberals to beware that their own principles may be—nay, are—used against th a very freedom of which they justly boast. It is my firm belief that by this fatal measure you are taking the first step in a coarse which the Jesuit has marked out for your pursuit. Some few Jews may obtain seats in this house, but what yon now do is playing the gime of the Jesuits against the freedom of England ; you are adopting the principles which were so nobly and successtully resisted by our ancestors in the Revolution of 1688. (Hear, hear.) I will not further detain the house. I thank the Liberal members of the house for having allowed me to appeal to many, who are my superiors in intellect and attainments, in the hape that they will consider seriously whether by the policy which they enforce they arc not breaking down the bul- warks of the Constitution, and do not imperil the inestima• ble blessing of English freedom. (Loud chem.) Mr. Lefroy, Mr. Collins, Mr. Griffith, Admiral Walcott, and Colonol Freestun continued the dis cussion, and upon a divisien the amendment was negatived by 129 to 35. The bill sas then read a third time and passed. On the order fur the consideration of the Lords' reasons for insisting on their amendments to the Oaths Bill, Lord J. RuSSEII. moved tho following resolu tion t That this house does not consider it necessary to Examine the reasons offered by the. Lords for insisting upon the exclusion of Jews from Parliament, as by a bill of the present session their lordships have provided for the admission of persona professing the Jewish religion to seats in the Legislature. - - Exceptions were taken to the wording of the reso lution, but the only alteration adopted was the inser. tion, at the suggestion of Sir J. GRAIikX, of the word " means," after " provided." Mr. SroosEn moved to add, at the end of the re. solution : The bill being in direct contravention of the clear and cogent reasons assigned by their lordships against the enactments of snob bill. This amendment was negatived, and the resolution we% agreed to. Lard JOHN RUSSELL then moved a further resolu tion : That this house doth not insist upon their disagreement with the Lords in their amendments to the said bill. This resolution was agreed to without opposition. The Marriages (Moscow, (U.) Bill, and the County Court Districts Bill, were read a third ti►ae and passed. The house, after some further business, adjourned at four o'clock. HOUSE OF LORDS-THURSDAY. INDIA. The Earl of MALMESB — lTRYannouneed that a tele gram bad been received from India with the news that the forces under Sir Hugh Rose took Gwalior, after a severe titzilt of four hours, on the 20th of June. His lordship also informed the house that on the 20th of May the forts at the mouth of the Peiho, mounting 13R guns, had been gallantly taken by the English and French gunboats. TH6 JEW BILL. On the order for resuming the adjourned debate on the third reading of this bill, Mr. WARREN, in a speech full of denunciations and dismal vaticinations, moved to defer the third reading for three months. The amendment was seconded by Mr. lloPwoop. Mr. ROEBUCK, after some severe strictures upon [he House of L or d s , o b serv ed that they had done a goon thing in a foolish manner; but because they had thrown discredit upon themselves this house must not be blamed. Mr. SPOIiNER vindicated his own consistency, au& declared that if the house wished to degrade the