The Press. — London, England, 1858-08-14 00:00:00

_ - 1' ki E V .4E IA 0" AUGUST 14, 1858. 85 SIR JOHN LAWIIEI4CE. The CHAIRMAN gave notice that a meeiind of thb court would be held that day fortnight, to confirm an annuity voted by the directors to Sir ' John Lawrence. Mr. CnAwsuaY gav e notice that he should Cu ll attention to the conduct of Sir John Lawrence in refe rence to the natives of India. The court then adjourned. at hli instigation, threw out the bill. What followed ? A week after, and the House of Commons found out that Baron Rothschild could be put on a committee, and they straightway placed him on a committee to urge upon the lords reasons against receiving their lordships' amend ments. The Lords struck out the Jew ; and the Commons sent him up to expostulate. The Lord Chancellor felt that the circumstances sere rather awkward. He said the Lords were not to be intimidated by Baron Rothschild being tit up to them, and advised the h ouse not to g ive way. By some extraordinary conjuring process, however—fur there is conjuring in the House of Lords, as well as in " another place,"—a bill was brought in by a supporter of the Government, and a supporter of the Government who had always opposed the Jew Bill, by which the Commons were empowered to seat Baron Rothschild by resolution if they liked ; and on the very day that this bill was brought in the House of Lords sent down to the House of Coin• mons their reasons fur not admitting him. The bill was brought in on the 11th of July, and sent down to the Com mons, when her Majesty's Ministers proposed a resolution fir the admission of Baron Rothschild to Parliament. And what was tho reason for this step? Here it is; and I think such a reason would have been given in no other country in the world, and in no other place than the House of Lords:—" Because, without imputing any disloyalty or disaffection to her Majesty's subjects of the Jewish persua sion, the Lords consider that the denial and rejection of that Saviour in whose name each House of Parliament daily offers up its collective prayers for the Divine blessing on its councils consiitute a moral unfitness to take part in the legislation of a professedly Christian community." So the House of Lords, with these reasons—no common reasons, but reasons of the deepest and gravest importance —minions affecting the deepest feelings of the human breast —the Lords decided that the Jew was morally unfit, and straightway sent down a bill to empower the Commons to seat Baron Rothschild in their house ! After that, what are we to say to a Conservative Administration which can tyke so extraordinary a curse? I can feel a modified respect for the consistent and sincere intolerance of Messrs. Spooner and Newdegate. I prefer their course infinitely to the shabby tergiversation of these Conservative converts. They at least are respectable. They have a principle, and understand what thty are contending for; but other men, while pretending to battle equally for the same thing, directly they obtain the object of their wishes calmly sa• orifice the principles they have professed. They declare the Jew morally unfit to sit in Parliament, and that his presence will uncht istianize the Legislature, and yet they are immediately found consenting to his admission. wont' ask any reasonable man, after this, whether any confidence can be placed in a Conservative Administration. If these men thought so—if Lord Chelmaford thought so —if Mr. Walpole. who always put this question on the re ligious ground of unchristlanizing the Legislature, thonght so, they were each and all bound, after giving reasons so serious, to follow up their protestations with acts equally grave. If Lord Derby's Administration had acted upon this principle, they would have been bound to deliver their seals of office into the hands of her Majesty. But even Lord Chelinsford, having given his opposition on these grounds over and over again in the House of Commons, and following up this opposition from his seat on the wool. sack, did not think himself bound to resign, and failed to show that the keeper of the Queen's conscience had not himself a conscience as pliable and as yielding as the woolsack on which he sat. Lord Chelinsford's desire to keep his seat outweighed his desire to quiet his conscience, and he contented himself with a quiet vote, and raised no opposition to a step outraging the convictions he had aver and over again so solemnly tleclai ed. This, gentlemen, I sub mit, is one of the most humiliating spectacles which have ever occurred in the nineteenth century. After all, we can give no credit for this yielding to popular pressure. The mea sure is thrown to the people like a bone to a dog. The Jew is not admitted to a seat in Parliament on the broad principle of religious equality ; the act is shielded under techni calities; the Cons , restive Administration in passing the measure have betrayed their weakness and vacillation, but, letting " I 'late not wait upon I would," have cue. ceded to popular clamour what they have denied to more worthy influences. I have not a particle of affec tion for the Jew, as a Jew ; but I regard hint upon the broad principle, that of whatever religious opinion a man may be, so long as he pays taxes and obeys the laws he is entitled to every privilege of a citizen. After paying a tribute of admiration to the course pursued by Lord Lyndhurst, Lord John Russell, and Duncombe, the member for Finsbury, in their struggles to advance the cause of religious liberty as perfected in the bill which seated Baron Roths child in the House of Commons, Mr. Osborne con tinued Yon b*a that measure, gentlemen, to a concession made Without grace, and, I may add, received without gratitude. After some remarks upon church rates, Mr. Osborne took up the subject of the Reform Bill : But there is a future before us; there is a great future ; we are going to have a Conservative Reform Bill. I over and over again heard Sir Frederick Thesiger resist measures of this description in the House of Commons, and he is now going to bring in a Conservative Reform Bill in the House of Lords. What that Reform Bill will be would puzzle a conjuror ; but I would tell you, if I were inclined to prophesy, that I do believe the present Govern ment will meet Parliament as DON constituted; I believe there is great difference of opinion in that Government ; I believe von will see it in an advancing section, consisting of Mr. Disraeli, Lord Stanley, and Sir John Pakington. These members of the Cabinet are inclined to go forward, white Lord Chelmsford, Lord Salisbury, and Mr. Henley are inclined to go back. A struggle may take place, and boron tl month of February we ma No a disruption gi the present Government, because I cannot fancy that any Reform Bill proposed by Lord Chel I aford anti Lord Salisbury will satisfy the country. There has also already been a serious difference between father and son in the same Cabinet, by Lord Stanley bringing forward his clause of the Wirt Bill authorizing competitive examination. 1 regard the latter noble lord with profound respect, and view his connection with a Conservative Government as a matter of purely filial relation ; indeed I look tor a future when Lord Stanley shall be at the head of a Liberal Administration. Ho le now nut of his place, and he feels it. Lord Stanley is no Conservative. Mr. Disraeli will do what he is pressed to do, mid I thick that he is inclined to march on. He has got into very had company, lint if you will give him an opportunity, 1 think he, with Sir John Potkington and Lord Stanley, will be desirous of quitting it. It has been laid down by some writer that every man in the course of his life eats a peck of dirt I believe if that be true of men in general these members of the Conservative Cabinet have each eaten at least four pecks this year. They have eaten up all their old confessions, which contained a good deal of that com• modity. It is utterly impossible to Rey what they will and what they will not do. We all know the sudden gyrations they perform, and who can tell but that in one of these captious flights they may do something revolutionary. Ite• deed, I should not be much surprised to hear some morning that Lord Chelmsford hail got up and stormed Buckingham Palace at the head or the Grenadiers. At the same time I am in that position that if they bring in a good and Natisfite• tory Reform Bill, however much I despise the men and despise their conduct, I shall support the measure. But have no confidence in the men. 1 must, in accordance with my own principles, support a measure of real reform, but I do not anticipate that they will bring in a measure of Beth cient importance--constructed RS the present Cabinet is— either for me to support or you to approve. Their cry is to give them time, and i willingly say give it. Nobody ex pected they would live to the end of the session; but, like confirmed invalids often do, they have lasted tench longer than healthier men. We often see it so. A halting decrepit old man goes faltering on, arid to the surprise of everybody he falters on much longer than his stronger and robust neighbour. Well, gentlemen (continued Mr. Osborne ), we have talked a great deal of the Conservative party, but one word is due to another party—the Liberal party—which is at this minute something like that noble river alluded to in the Queen's Speech. The Liberal party is in a state of decomposition. The Liberal party, that noble party, is at present in a disjointed and unsatisfactory state. Nobody seems to know what has become of the Liberal party as a party, hut, at the same time, I congra tulate you that, although the party is to a cei Min extent scattered, the principles which have distinguished it are still healthy. I do not care about this or that body of men. I do not despair of liberal principle., although I am in clined to despair of liberal men. They are often influenced by accident or circumstances; but we may depend on this, that whatever body of men are in the ascendant, and whether a parliamentary majority shield a Conservative or Liberal Government, the Government of the present day must be one founded on the principles of liberality and freedom. A Government may succeed by chicanery or tergiversation in neutralizing one measure, or bringing it another • hut, in the end, liberal principles mu s t p ro g ress. The Liberal ' party, therefore, is equally safe, whether in or out of office. However decomposed that noble river may be, it rung purer as it approaches the sea ; however de cayed the Liberal party may be, it will gain new life as it is brought into contact with the constituencies. Atter recommending a mutual forbearance by thb different sections of Liberals towards each other, the hon. gentleman concluded his speech by alluding to the naval demonstration at Cherbourg ; and, although denying that lie was an alarmist, or that be feared any immediate misunderstanding between England and her neighbours, he pressed upon the attention of his hearers the necessity he conceived to exist for the estati!isliment of an effective Channel fleet. He expressed the satisfaction be felt at having had the opportunity of addressing his constituents, and thanked them for the patient hearing they had ac corded him. Resolutions, indicative of continued confidence in Mr. Osborne anti his colleague Sir William Russell, M.P., were passed, and the meeting then separated, after a cordial vote of thanks to the respected chair man. AIR. OSBORNE, M.P.I AT DOVER. MR. R. Osnonsz, M.P., addressed his constitneim, on the oth instant, at the Royal Oak Assembly Rooms, Dover, which were crowded to suflbention. Mr. S. Finnis occupied the chair. M.P., who WIIS warmly cheered on Mr. OSBORNE , rising to add ress the meeting, after briefly noticing some topics of only local interest, and after some round abuse of the Conservatives for turning out Lord Palmerston, proceeded to particulars, and spoke as follows about India: — No doubt there was great oblige under the old East India directors; but the East India directors, although elected, were not elected for life. There is, moreover, no question bat they did the business excellently. Now, the salary they received was 5001. a year without a retiring pension. But what have we now? A council of fifteen elected for life, with a salary of 1,21$)1. a year and a retiring pension. Sooner than consent to this I would make one man re. sponsible for the administration of the Indian empire, as proposed by Mr. Bright ; and although I differ very much from Mr. Bright on general matters, I go very far with him in his view of Indian affairs, Intl I feel confident that Wore two years the work of Parliament with reference to India wit have to he done over again. For the present the very name of India has become insufferable—so much so to me that I have recently been unable to look at a curry for dinner, because it comes from India. And be fere two Yeats are over, all this work will have to be done again. The members of the council elected for life—un fortunate men have sacrificed their seats in Par liament, and will find no constituency to re-elect theta ; and they will be also minus their " retiring pension." And, certain as I am that in less than two years a new India Bill will be proposed, I feel equally sure that it wilt not be proposed by her Majesty's present advisers. The hon. gentleman then passed on to the other measures of the present Administration ; and, after a brief alln , ion to the abolition of the Property Qua liticivion Bill and the Corrupt Practices Prevention Act, by which he said the former was neutralized, and was an instance of " change without progress," he proceeded to give au illustration of another phrase which ho had applied to the Conservative party—" concession without grace." This he pro posed to find in the Jew Bill : You will all recollect the efforts Lord John Russell lied the Liberal party in general have from time to time mode to place the great coping-stone on the pile of religious liberty by the admission of Jews to Parliament. I go further than that. lam not content with the admission of Jews to Parliament ; I Atilt not be content until we have ono oath for all men, and do away with the suc cession of oaths now put to various individuals, tecanse I think that Parliament has no right to ask any indivi dual man, so long as he is a good citizen and moral character, what are his specific religious opinions. These are my sentiments, and I . am happy to say that they are also the sentiments of the great proportion of the Liberal party, although they are too apathetic to carry those senti meats into law. Now, what was the course pursued by this Government on the Jew Bill? What but concession without glace? The bill, as you all know, was brought forward by Lord John Russell in the House of Commons last session as usual, it was argued as usual, and carried as usual by a large majority. It went to the House of Lords, anti what did the House of Lords do ? That house, atter it very strong debate, threw out the bill by a large majority in the beginning of June. The bill was thrown out on the highest—viz., religious—grounds. It, was the opinion of the majority of the Lords that the bill would " nnchristianize the Legislature." The Lord Chancellor of England, who on every occasion when Sir Frederick Thesiger, in the How* of Commons, stood forward as the most bigoted opponent of that measure, who took every opportunity to thwart Lord John Russell, who put it on the highest ground, and for a lawyer did an exceedingly bold thing—what another person is said to have done with considerable shame to himself--qnoted Scripture on every occasion as a reason against the admission of the Jew to Parliament—this Lord High Chancellor of Eng- Ilnd, the keeper of the Queen's conscience, on the ..7111 of tpril last ,lid a most extraordinary thing; not con tented with making a speech from his place in the House of Lords, he had it printed. I have had the good for- Moo to obtain a copy of that speech, not from Lord Chelmsford, but front some friend of hits. The following passage occurs in it. It is a little remarkable as indica tive of what a Conservative Administration is. Speaking of the Jews, he says, " We are upon no common question. We are upon a question of conscience and religious duty, and. my lords, lordships whatever may be the [beasts by which your ps are sought to be intimidated, I trust you will proceed fearlessly and steadily in what you consider to be the path of duty." On April the 27th the Lord Chan cellor of England says these words, and publishes his aPeoch ;—" If we are to yield against onr judgment and our conscien ces , i t wou ld h ive b een b e tt er to do no at an earlier period, when concession wont.' have had the grace of a voluntary am, and would not have been a forced sub. 131i "im." On the 27th of April the leading member of Lord Derby's Government ssys this ; and the lords, =WV MR. ROEBUCK, M.P., AND MR. LINDSAY M.l'., IN THE NORTH. THE new Mechanics' Institute building, in Howard street, 'l'ynemouth, was opened on Tuesday after noon last. It was a general holiday, and Mr. Lindsay, M. P., and Mr. Roebuck, M.P., who arrived by the twelve o'clock train, were escorted to the building by a large procession of the members of the institute, the seamen of the port, and trade societies. Lord Bury and Mr. Justice Haliburtou should have boen present., but were prevented from being so, Lord Bury having lost his uncle by death, and Justice Halibtirton being seized by au attack of gout at Ynrk. At a soiree held in the evening Mr. Lindsay said : I have been turning over in my mind how I should best occnpv your attep.timi. and 1 have thought that I could not do beiter than give you a short account of my trip to Cher. bourg: Now 1 am afraid I must be liornewhst dry for a tew ninnies, and as I don't find that the press have called at wallop to the (Et, I visit to toll MIAMI; to the tot our of