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

THE PRESS,

THE WEEK.

Parliament, as is often the case, lingers over the last few steps of its
journey; and is likely, apparently, to sit until one of the latest days
named for its rising—Thursday or Friday in the week after next. Possi-
bly, however, by an effort, the close may be reached a few hours earlier.
A steam-boat is in preparation, to convey a large party of members of
the House of Commons, to attend her Majesty at Cherbourg.

The rejection by the house of Lords of the Bill for the Marriage
with a Deceased Wife's Sister is an instance of the great good that may
be effected by the Upper House of Par liament by the exercise of a little
judicious obstructiveness. The abstract propriety of the proposed measure
must be argued elsewhere than in the columns of a newspaper. Our own
opinion upon the subject has been briefly stated upon several previous
occasions. But, independently of that opinion, we see reason to congratu-
late the public upon the delay which the decision of the House of Lords
has occasioned in the settlement of this question. There can be no doubt
that the present advocates for the legality of this marriage are in a minority.
Minorities lately have had far too much power. When an intellectual and
educated minority, as we do not deny the advocates of this measure
to be, steadily demand a reform, there is good reason for in-
vestigating its propriety. But it is pessimi exempli to concede to
the loquacious activity of a clique what the solid, silent sense of the nation
is utterly opposed to. We must wait and watch. We entertain no very
strong opinions- upon the abstract impropriety of the proposed measure,
though we honestly fear it might be fraught with many practical incon-
veniences. But this is eminently one of those measures which as soon as
the nation desires the nation will have. Till it does so, we need not " fash
our thumbs" about the matter. We still cannot help believing that it will
be a long time before the English people begin to comprehend the boon
that is offered to them under the guise of this alteration of the law. The
wealthier classes do not, perhaps, thoroughly understand the extent of the
temptation they would be thrusting on their poorer brethren were this
proposal to become law. The rich can always keep a close watch, if
necessary, upon their relations—can, if necessary, remove a relative from a
dangerous atmosphere at a moment's notice. Not so the
poor. Would you, even under the present state of the law,
says the rich man, allow your young unmarried daughter
if possessed of personal attractions, to make a long stay with her married
sister ? Perhaps not, says Dives. But what says Pauper ? " I cannot
help it." Well, then, the question arises, Is it not worse if the sister and
brother-in-law know they are outside the pale of affinity, than if they feel
themselves within it ? Any way, there would be one element of restraint
removed by the change in question, and we must say we are thankful to
the Prelates and Noblemen who recorded their votes against it.

When will our leading journalists leave off calling everybody a "fool"
or a "bigot" who happens to disagree with them ? Mr. BAILEY, the
author of "Festus," was lately thought worthy, by Lord PsiatzusTox, of
a public pension, as a man of genius. Mr. BAILEY, in his last work, issued
from the press only a few days since, argues cogently, that if you would
be a legislator at Constantinople, it would be taken for granted that you
must be a Turk ;—that if you would conduct the Government at Rome, it
would be inconceivable that you should be aught but a Papist; and, by
parity of reasoning, one who would make laws for Englishmen, should
surely be a Christian. Neither Mr. TRACKERAY nor Mr. DICKENS sit in
Parliament, nor do we know their opinions on Jewish Emancipation. But
woe unto either of them, if he found his way into that assembly, and
ventured to hesitate a doubt as to the fitness of Jews to legislate for
Christians. The author of "Ten Thousand a Year" ranks below neither
of them as an author of power and brilliancy • yet in the Times and Daily
News of yesterday he figures as a driveller, because he agrees in opinion
with Mr. BAILEY !
The speaker, however, who most raises the anger of these writers is
the unbending Member for North Warwickshire. There never was a man
better abused than Mr. NEWDEGATE has been by six or eight of the
Liberal journals this week. There cannot be a better proof that the bolt
hit the mark. The Times confesses that it " does not know how to deal
with that speech." It introduced one topic—the influence of the Jesuits—
which Liberal politicians would fain ignore. But Mr. NEWDEGATE left
them no room for this, for he took care to adduce the plainest and
strongest proof of what he asserted. Hence, ridicule is the only weapon
left them. But this weapon will only go a certain length. The sincere
and earnest can always exhaust its strength. WILBERFORCE was un-
sparingly ridiculed ; so was SADLER, so was Lord ASHLEY, when fighting
the battle of humanity in the House of Commons. And it is remarkable
now that the same Times newspaper which is vehemently desirous of
Jewish loan jobbing counsels in the Legislature, is also prepared to revive
slavery and the slave trade.
The fact which Mr. NEWDEGATE so strongly pressed upon the atten-
tion of the House, that all over Europe the Jesuits are Liberals wherever
it answers their purpose, is one which Liberals dislike to be reminded of ;
but it is not the less important that it should be kept in mind. And its
bearing on the present question is surely obvious enough, when we re-