The Press. — London, England, 1858-05-22 00:00:00

perty was first acquired in the soil attached to Woburn Abbey. The words did exclude the Jews, and that was enough. Besides, when the Roman Catholics were excluded no one would ever have dreamed of admitting the Jews. But the second resolution goes on : "Because the exclusion of British subjects from seats and offices of State, on the ground of their religious opinions, is contrary to the general maxims of freedom of conscience." The affirmation of the "principle" (?) as serted in this "reason" would carry the House of Commons much further than it intends. The House is not prepared to admit " Deists," who reject revelation ; and it is yet to be proved what are the personal merits of the hereditary deniers of CHRIST, as contrasted with the Deists who reject Scriptural Revelation, although professing to acknowledge the obligatory power of conscience, and a future state. If a Jew be admitted to the Legislature, why should an avowed Deist be ex cluded ? TOLAND and TINDAL were men of misguided talents and misdirected learning, but there is no reason for supposing that they were less conscientious in their disbelief of the Bible, than the Jews are in their rejection of the Divine Redeemer. What is a Jew but an 'anti- Christian Deist, whose traditions, as well as prejudices, are opposed to the religion of ? Admit the Jews (as a matter of the honours and trusts of the Legisla it might be difficult to exclude those creed is "the love of the good and the convenient form of expression for Deism. said, thirdly, that the Jews have not disloyal, and that they are not intellectually offices : the same assertions might be `moral Deists." Aild (fourthly) it is that exclusion savours of " persecu does every "exclusion," and Lord J. ought to recollect the Anti-Papal Act Other " reasons" of a similar kind do the difficulty of the case. is, however, far more force in the fifth which appeals to the progress of opinion subject, though it is awkwardly stated in calculated to increase the antagonism 'wo Houses. If a large portion of the public, after repeated discussions, should that, after the latitude given to Roman it is hard to exclude the Jews, and if measure could only be taken in a political, in a religious sense, we can understand those Peers who have conscientiously ' the admission of the Jews might change minds. The Jew question when demanded `stand-and-deliver ' tone is a very different the same Jew question when asked for respectful and conciliatory manner. " I opposed Reform formerly," said Lord PLUNKET 1831, " because it came like a housebreaker ' menanced life and property ; it now ad like a creditor, and I am ready to con the propriety of discharging the account." conciliation and a proper style were employed, possible that the Peers would consider further opposition should be given to of the Jews. iothing could be worse than for the House of to make a precedent for trying to question by itself. Before five years would bitterly regret its conduct. One the State cannot arrogate the privilege independence of all others, and it is not per ., to every branch of the State to say, like Is XIV., "W e arc t h e S tate. " If t h e House Commons set at nought the decision of the f Lords, the time might come when Con - would f o ll ow th e examp l e o f th e H ouse Common s , and disregard Parliament! The udicature, also, might prove an extremely for dable and disagreeable opponent of the House Commons at some future time, if the House commit itself by an unconstitutional worth recollecting that when the Jew ques first actively brought before Parliament, ~' . misguided tal there is no rl less conscieni than the th Divine Rede Christian I) whose prejw the Cross ? right) to the ture, and it r whose creed fir"—a cow But it as 8 been disloyal unfit for offic made of " m contended tl tion." So d( RussELL oug of 1851. Ot not touch the There is, 1 reason, whicl on the subjec a manner ca of the two religious pub think that, Catholics, it the measure and not in a how those opposed the I their minds. in a "stand-i one from tht in a respect " opposed - R 4 in 1831, " bi " and mena " vances Ilk " sider the p If conciliatio it is just pos whether fur the claims of Nothing c Commons ti settle the q passed it wol Tower of the of independi flitted to ev lours XIV. of Commons House of Lo vocation wol of Common Judicature, midable and of Commom were to cor precedent. It is worth tion was f i rsi 111 THE PRESS, MAY 22, 1858. there was much loose thinking abroad, and infi delity showed a more audacious and " popular" front than it now presumes to do. The Jew question was argued then in a dictatorial and peremptory manner. The House of Commons passed it readily, and it is not to be wondered at that the House of Lords objected to legislation carried on in such a spirit. In 1829, when the Roman Catholic question was passed, l'arliament disfranchised the Irish forty-shilling freeholders, imposed a " Catholic Oath," and protected the offices of Viceroy of Ireland and Lord Chancellor from the Roman Catholic ambition. These measures, though slight "securities," are of constitutional signifi cance as to the interpretation of the measure of 1829, which must not be construed as intention ally anti-Protestant, even though it was fraught with grave peril. The suggestion has been thrown out that the Jew question might be settled, if the Legislature made certain declara tions, and if steps were taken which would amount to patent evidence that admission of the Jews was not to be interpreted as an overt act of Parliamentary indifference to Christianity. But in the present state of our columns we cannot enter on this branch of our subject, and must reserve our remarks for another time, observing that it often happens in public, as in private life, that favours refused as things of right are after wards conceded as matters of permission. PEERAGE PECULIARITIES. Two features in the recent division in the House of Lords seem to call for a brief notice. 1. The conduct of some members of the Epis copal Bench was calculated to give pain to the friends of the Church, and to strengthen the hands of those who demand the exclusion of the Bishops from the House of Lords. The motion was of a transparently party cha racter. It was concocted at a meeting held on the Sabbath-day, at the house of the late Pre mier, and which meeting was attended by most of the members of the late Cabinet. The object of the whole movement was never concealed ; it was to drive Lord DERBY from power, and to trans fer the Government to Lard PALmEnsToN. This was just such a motion as we might have expected most prelates of discretion and proper feeling to have eschewed. And this very line of conduct was adopted by most of the Conservative Bishops. We do not find the Archbishops of CANTERBURY or ARMAGH voting either in person or by proxy. Nor do we see the names of the Bishops of WINCHESTER, PETERBOROUGH, ELY, BANGOR, LINCOLN, or LICHFIELD. The Bishops of DURHAM and CHESTER are regarded as Whigs, but their sense of propriety prevented their appearance in this party scuffle, even by proxy. Must it not be painful, then, to see such men as the Bishops of CARLISLE, LONDON, and RIPON appearing in the front rank of the fight, for no other conceivable reason than that they were raised to the bench by Lord PALMERSTON, and were therefore—so runs the reasoning—bound to help him at a pinch ! 2. But while the Bishops were thus hazarding the safety of the Church, what were the Roman Catholic Peers doing? Ten Roman Catholic Lords opposed the Government on a question upon which a vast number of independent politicians support her Majesty's Ministers. Four of the Romish Peers were " present " in favour of the Palmerstonian " cabal ;" and there were " proxies" for the same purpose from six others. We cannot see that one Roman Catholic Peer supported Government. And who was it that was chosen to second the vote of censure in the House of Commons ? It was the same Member of Parliament, Mr. Ser geant DEAsv, whom the Roman Catholic body last year selected for the purpose of bringing forward a motion for the alteration of the Roman Catholic Oath, one of the few securities of 1829. Facts like these require no comment. The Ro man Catholic body has lent its force to the " Cabal," because it knows that certain persons in the Liberal connection would go any length in search of votes, and a change of Government would enormously increase the power of the Roman Catholic body. The fact that no Roman Catholic Peer has supported the Government, while ten Peers of that persuasion have given their influence to the Opposition, proves an animus of a most singular kind. Ultenor objects of a nature less ephemeral than considerations of " party " could alone have actuated the combi nation of so many Romanist Peers. It is known, besides, that a considerable sec tion of the Parliamentary Roman Catholics are now prepared to allow of leadership being again given to Lord JOHN RUSSELL, and the Pope need not dread any more " Durham Letters." We think it is tolerably plain that the Mover of the Resolution, and certain Bishops, his friends, have been duped on this occasion by the per sonage who is an object of so much abhorrence to the Evangelical Alliance. REAL CHARACTER OF THE NATIONAL DEBT. TO THE EDITOR OF " THE PRESS." Sir,—The common cry of speculative politicians has been that the existence of the National Debt is burdensome, its increase alarming, and its extension beyond a limited point likely to be fatal. Thus far they certainly have been mistaken—that all the limits they have set to its extension successively have been much exceeded without producing any such result as they expected. This mistake arises, unquestionably, from not properly distinguishing different things called by the same name, and, there.. fore, from confounding the nature of what was called a public debt with that of a private debt. The latter I confess to be ruinous ; but the other I consider as more properly to be called the public ability than the public debt, being a vast ideal capital, the inte rest of which is kept in constant circulation and actual use, instead of being unproductively hoarded, by means of the funds. Sir, I contend that paying off any great part of the debt would render the payment of the taxes that still remained much more an object of complaint than before they were taken off, and would make it still more difficult on any emergency to raise supplies, or to exert the public ability with energy ; and that the increase of indite trious employments, arising from the circula tion of the public interest from the funds, will ever proceed faster than the taxes drawn from the per sons so obtaining a livelihood can possibly do. These ideas are, methinks, important. They are, doubtless, just in a great degree ; but the difficulty of laying on taxes, after a time, without a consider able change in the opinions of the pnblie, will be likely to prevent the tact from keeping pace with the theory. The argument, however, deserves serious consideration.—l am, sir, your humble servant, CHARLES ALDatca. Hobart street, Stonehouse, Plymouth. May 18th, 1858. MR. LEWIS LOYD, the father of Lord Overstone, whose death is just reported as having taken place at his son's seat in Northamptonshire, at the venerable age of ninety, was tor a period of fifty years the head of the eminent banking house of Jones, Loyd, and Co., of Manchester, and of Loth bury, London. He was the eldest son of Mr. Wm. Loyd of Court Henry, Carmarthenshire, and early in life became the pastor of a small dissenting chapel at Manchester; but having married the only daughter of Mr. John Jones, a wealthy merchant of that city, he quitted his profession, or rather ex. changed it, for the world of commerce. His father in-law took him into partnership at Manchester, and he showed great capacity in his new posi• tion. After some years, in consequence of re peated complaints on the part of their London agents as to the difficulty of keeping the accounts of the firm, it was agreed that Mr. Loyd should proceed to the metropolis and establish there a bank under the same name as the original firm. This he did, and Jones Loyd and Co. of Manchester drew bills on Jones Loyd and Co. of Lothbury, London. The results of Mr. Loyd's energy, indus try, and mercantile intelligence, are to be seen directly in the great banking-house which bears his name, and more remotely in the elevation of his son, Mr. Samuel Jones Loyd to the honours of the British peerage as Lord Overstone, the only title which has been conferred upon a prince of the mer cantile world, with the exception of Carrington, Ash burton, and Belper.—Times. " . . A