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 gave notice that he should Cull
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 house not to give 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 must progress.
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 address 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 consciences, it would hive been better 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