The Press. — London, England, 1858-05-29 00:00:00

506 for this change of conduct. Naturally enough people will ask,—lf this, is to be the line of con duct adopted, what is the use of a House of Lords ? If the higher end more deliberative As sembly cannot keep is the same plied for a month together, will it cicS 1)e bettcr Is be cgs:- tent with a single Ho I In April the Lo reltised ky 119 votes against 80 to admit the i jgw* to so* e Chys tian Legislature. In law they are tote asked to rescind practically their jtner decisisu, though not one reason can be adduced which has not been adduced again and again ; and though they will thus stand before the world as the most vacillating and unreliable body of men in existence. We shall deeply regret it if the House of Lords can be induced thus to compromise its own character. Still more shall we regret it if not only Lord LUcAN, but even Lord SHAFTESBURY IHNI other Peers who then voted against the Jewish clause, shall now, within four weeks, wheel suddenly round and accept the proposal. We cannot but feel it strange that any idea of concession should have been entertained at the present moment. It seems to us that it must be beneath the dignity of the House of Lords to give any further consideration to the Oaths Bill this session. Openly and very plainly it has been threatened, that if the Peers do not give way, the House of Commons will alter the law without their help ! Under such a menace as this, the Peers surely cannot concede a hair's breadth without subjecting themselves to the imputation of yielding from motives of fear. Nor can it be said that the menace proceeded from men of no consideration. Had the Coxes or Ayrtons, or people of that class, blustered and threatened, it might be the wiser course to take no notice of them. But when her Majesty's late Attorney- General, apparently supported by a Noble Lord who has been at the head of a former Adminis tration,—when such persons as these are not ashamedsto use menaces, it surely becomes the House of Lords to stand firm, and to say, "Not one inch, while such language is used !" But do we then mean to say that if the pro moters of the Oaths Bill behaved with propriety and decency, then even the Jewish clause might pass ? No, we have arrived at no such conclu sion • but we make this distinction :—So long as the conclu sion; of Commons proposes measures in a decent and constitutional way, so long must the House of Lords give to those measures—whether proposed once or twenty times—a calm and patient consideration. Nay, more, if the House of Commons shows great perseverance in urging a measure which the House of Lords dislikes, it may well become the Peers to deliberate long and carefully whether any way can be devised for bringing the two Houses into agreement. And this we have no doubt the Peers will do. To our minds, however, we confess, it always appears that the demand made by one or two individuals, in the matter of the "Jewish disabilities," is far too great for a few persons to have any right to make. A small minority ought not to expect the bulk of the community to give way to its fancies. There are many small sects in England which number more adherents than does the Chief Rabbi. But if any of these—Mormonites, San demanians, or any other minor sect—were to ask Parliament to alter the fundamental laws of England in its behalf; the request would be pooh-pooh'd. That the "Jewish claims" are not similarly coughed down, is owing mainly to one peculiar circumstance. We have one large Jewish firm in London, of great wealth ; and these persons, to whom the expenditure of 10,0001. or 20,0001. is no object, seem to have resolved, by weight of money, to force the Legislature to alter the British Constitution so as to meet their views. Take away the Rothschild family—to which Mr. SALOMANS is merely an adjunct or lieutenant— and where is the Jewish question ? Without their money and influence, the whole controversy would have died a natural death a dozen years ago. Now, when the demand is, that, merely to please this one family from Frankfort, we shall consent to blot out the profession of Christianity from our public documents and standards, we must say that this is asking too much. We do not think that one or two wealthy families in a nation have a right to ask the nation so to alter its own proper system merely to suit their views. THE PRE S S, MAY 29, 1858. As to the particular point aimed at in Lord LUCAN'S amendment, it is almost beneath a serious argument. A certain oath is prescribed by a statute of wore IW 4 century standing. The opt jqn of or hi lwqt courts of Law has been tiAgi, and the Sim and extent of that Vath him beep attic defined. And now a eer aclolly row to se that all this shalt le, not ',pealed, b (pose ! That the oatt may be (riot shall hp) Rin a certain way la the House of Lords, jA certain other way in the House of Comiliew. Was there ever such conthsion ? If the House of Lords should consent to such a motion, it will be precipitated into a blunder as bad as that of Balaklava. It will ride down from its present safe position into a storm of contempt and ridicule almost as terrible as the storm of bullets which poured from the Russian batteries! The Lords could do nothing worse than to set up a practice of their own—a way of reading the law differing from the way adopted in the Com mons. But such an absurdity would be short lived. The moment a Hebrew Peer made his appearance—if such a person should ever ap pear—that moment the Peers must conform their practice to that of the other House. The exclu siveness pretended in the amendment is nothing more than a pretence ;—in short, a sham! In fact, Lord LUCAN'S amendment gives up the whole question, and recants the vote of April without the least ground for doing so. The question is, how a Hebrew, elected M.P., can be admitted into the House of Commons. For many years the Lords have said, " We cannot alter the " laws of England merely to gratify Mr. ROTHS " CHILD." By the amendment now proposed, the Peers would wholly relinquish the ground they have so long maintained—would open the house of Commons to those who have hitherto been excluded, and whom, in April last, they declined to admit—and would merely, for form's sake, retain the barren privilege, that, if a Jewish Peer should be ever made, they would consider whether they would alter the law for his benefit or not ! This petty, sidelong way of surrendering, with out appearing to surrender, is not soldierly, to say the least of it. We are glad to receive an assurance that Lord DERBY'S Government are no parties to it. We trust that the members of the Cabinet who sit in the Upper House will let this be thoroughly understood. If the scheme is Lord Luc 's own, and if Lord SHAFTESBURY shall be so ill-advised as to support it, upon those two Noble Lords let all the honour or dis honour rest. We cannot believe that the majo rity of the House of Lords—especially after all that has lately occurred will accept such leadership. THE " SATURDAY REVIEW" ON " PATRIOTISM." WE have ever held with the Roman senate of old that it is a great virtue "not to despair of the "common weal." Among the errors of states men and the delusions of multitudes, we honour those who still believe that the country is sound in head and heart ; cannot long be duped, and will not be degraded. And the more general this belief:; the more, in our view of the subject, will love of country abound. Thinking thus of Patriotism, we should not in general look to see its growth much promoted by disquisitions in the Saturday Review. A knot of clever young colle gians cannot instil it through satirical " leaders," however enlivened by figures of rhetoric, or adorned by the richest varieties of illustration. The trained pantologist may draw his decorative material from sources as various as Swart Moses by the Coptic Sea, Plato, Petrarca, Livy, and Raphael, And Eastern Confutzee ; but he will only amuse or astonish, without in structing. His highest success will be to awaken regret or indignation. But even these are some thing in their proper place, and assuredly the events of last week had furnished both the occa sion and the material for calling them forth. Her Majesty's Opposition (!) had attempted a great political crime, though the attempt did but issue abortively in a blunder. They had discarded privata goscrygag g go public decorum —ay, cvel the silatitiost drap t ries of faction— to for a discredited olique (ID the nation they had to deg e. five was indeed a great cippottinity to **tram the v i rus of party pith Ow ipilicrial gi) patriotism —a place hunting Whig with an honest Englishman. Our satirical contemporary might have been as mer ciless as usual, without being unjust; and when our eye fell on an article appropriately headed " Our Enemies at Home," we regarded the title as a promise rather than a threat, and were prepared to see the lash laid on co n amore, without wasting pity on the thick skinned culprits. Perhaps we were hard hearted and deserved disappointment : it cer tainly came, whether deserved or no. The weekly scourge of petty offences and feeble delinquents could not rise "to the height of that " great argument." All that its " talented contributor" could learn from Mr. CARDWELL'A defeat, or teach its readers in connection there with, amounted but to this, that military operations are marred by official sympathy with our wisest commanders—that the amour-propre of a Governor-General is indissolubly bound up with our national weal—and, finally, that Lord ELLEN BOROUGH has simply played the traitor, and the House of Commons been guilty of misprision of treason. To any lover of unsparing, well-turned cen sure the rest of our contemporary's "slashing" article must have afforded a dainty treat. Quid non intus habet p What does it not include in its sweeping range ? Starting from the general thesis (so expressive of English sympathies and the truest love of fatherland) that a true patriot is now as rare in England as a nightingale north of the Tweed—that the spirit of CHATHAM lives but in the dreams of old romance—in brief, that the sacred flame of patriotism in this laggard age is fed only with the pages of the Saturday Review, the writer proceeds to lay about him with the rigour, if not with the justice, of a Rhadamanthus. RUSSELL at Vienna, his name sake in the Crimea (Times correspondence), ROEBUCK'S committee, and the Peace Con ference, BRIGHT on emigration, and LEWIS on the government of India—all are lashed alike as un-English and unpatriotic. Now, we do not deny that our contemporary's strictures contain a modicum of truth—that Ens lishmen often affect a cosmopolite spirit which is most alien to their real character, or in their love for publicity at home forget the mischiefs it may work us abroad. Still, much of the writer's cen sure is exaggerated—much out of date—some absolutely groundless. And, further, we object to the censor, as well as to the "diminutio capitis" which he would pronounce on his coun trymen in general. " Must crimes be punished " but by greater crimes and greater criminals ?" It is an evil thing, Heaven knows, "to make " political capital at your country's expense." But is it better to make literary capital in the same manner ? And what has been the " pabulum" of the Saturday Review since the commencement of its brilliant career, but general satire and univer sal detraction ? Does it not range over the poli tical map of England, from Dan to Beersheba, and find all barren ? Does it not even now. while professing allegiance to a vague phrase, openly proclaim the present hopelessn ess of finding " a Ministry that will do" Does it not deal with public men and their motives in language which, if generally believed, would render Government difficult and states manship impossible ? Were its political dis quisitions trusted as much as they are admired, no principle could find a living representative, no Minister a following. All would be distrust ast home ; and how should we fare abr oad ? W e should stand condemned throughout Europe—on our contemporary's own evidence—for an utter lack of that one noble quality which has so often been admitted in excuse of our arrogance or oddity. Surely, the least patriotic of English writers is he who formally announces to the world the extinction of English Patriotism !