The Express.
London, England, 1863-03-05 00:00:00

LYCIUM.

TM I maw, A BUWIN ATTACK. Moen. Shore
and Mid *comb: has Henrade sued Mrs. Gee.— TUB
DOMES MOTTO. Sierra Yeehter, G. Vint's, Brougham, and
Ramon e ; Mame C. Leetareq, IL Terry, and hlaworthy.

aznarlictL

Tun !Moron, WOILLICS DiVOTION. Mrs L Yarnold and
Mll Sophie IlUeo—And AWN HASSAN. Mrs. S. Lane;
_Wow 4. Leans, Louis, Newham, and Mdlle. C. Stephan ; Tom
retro • and his two Malea—Comseneo haltpass

MGR Wit AT LONDON 8A1D421.
7 MB DAT —Vilal. !b. fla.....Albrateries. A 25 se.
2 4lOSlO,—!lenalra !IL als.....Afteuess. 11. 67a.

LONDON, TEUIRBDAY, MARCH 5.

RECEPTION OF THE PRINCESS
ALEXANDRA.

On MONDAY EVENING next a DOUBLE
;NUMBER of the EXPRESS will be published,
!containing the fullest particulars of the reception
'of the Princess Alexandra in England.

Advertisements for this number must be received
at the office of the Express by T~►elve o'clock on
Saturday morning.

Tux first great and concentrated effort of the
Tory party in the " broad light of a Wednesday
" morning," will hardly be regarded, even by its
most ardent admirers, with feelings of unmingled
pride and satisfaction. Notwithstanding the
vigorous exertions of the Tory Whip, to the suc-
cess of which the crowded Opposition benches
afforded ample evidence, Mr. HADFIELD'S Qualifi-
cation for Offices Abolition Bill was yesterday read
a third time and passed in an unusually full House.
The House of Commons is thus saved from
the disgrace of having rejected a measure of
the simplest and most notorious justice. This
humiliating task must now be executed, if executed
at all, in the more congenial atmosphere of the
Upper House. According to the current rumour,
however, the Peers were anxious this year to be
relieved from the odium of rejecting for the fifth
time • Bill framed in a spirit of the severest
equity, and supported by every consideration of
enlightened principle and wise expediency. The
leaders of the Tory party in the House of Com-
mons had this session generously undertaken to share
the burden of public obstructiveness and popular op-
probrium which the Upper House has so long borne
alone, by securing a majority against the measure
in the representative assembly. The result shows
that in this undertaking the Tory leaders had
reckoned without their host. The Commons yes-
terday refused the attempted dictation of the
Upper House by passing once more the measure
of equitable relief which it had already supported
by decisive majorities in four previous sessions.
Though the question is in itself of comparatively
subordinate importance, the short debate which
preceded this triumphant vote affords some features
of special interest. It is, in fact, so instructive as
illustrating the position taken up by the Tory
party, that it well deserves the consideration of
liberal Churchmen and sonacientious Dissenters
throughout the kingdom. The opponents of the
measure did not pretend to say that the existing
law afforded any protection, or was in itself of the
smallest value to the Established Church. They
allowed, as they have repeatedly done before in
both Houses, that for this purpose it was practi-
cally worthless. But if so, the only excuse that
could ever have been urged on behalf of so one-
aided • law is swept away, and it becomes simply
a gratuitous outrage against the whole body of
Dissenters and a large proportion of liberal and
enlightened Churchmen throughout the kingdom.
This was not denied by Mr. NEWDEGATE and Mr.
WALPOLE, the chief speakers against the Abolition
811 l yesterday. They opposed the measure on the
ground that the oaths and declarations required by
the existing law were the result of a compact made
between the Legislature and the large body of the
nation who claimed relief from oppressive and per-
secuting disabilities thirty years ago. No plea
could more strikingly illustrate the inherent rotten-
ness of the cause these gentlemen undertook to
defend. Supposing any such compact had ever
been made, it was long ago broken by the Legisla-
ture itself, who have reduced the law to a dead
letter so far as the higher officers of the Crown are
concerned, by formally indemnifying them every
year for neglecting to meet its requirements.
Bat of course no such compact was
ever made, and the notion of its exist-
ence is simply an absurd and mischievous de-
lusion. It is no doubt historically true that the
progress of more liberal, just, and enlightened prin-
ciples of legislation amongst us has been not only
gradual, but comparatively slow. It was only
after years of persevering agitation that the most
oppressive and intolerant disabilities were re-
moved, and when at length the more flagrant
forms of injustice were done away, the spirit
of intolerance still lurked in less obtrusive
enactments. When the profane and revolting
Sacramental test was abolished, the oaths and de-
clarations of the existing law were in this way re-
tained. But they are in reality merely a remnant
of the old mediaeval spirit of persecution, and the
notion that Parliament has a vested interest in
such a miserable heirloom, a sacred right founded
on solemn compact to perpetuate this wretched
legacy of injustice, is in the last degree
puerile and absurd. The Test and Corporation
Act was abolished sa an act of public justice,
not as a matter of bargain or sale, and the nation
did not give up any of its rights to secure the re-
dress of this enormous and humiliating wrong. Bet
even if such a compact had been made thirty years
ago, the first duty of the Parliament of to-day
would be, imiteadof blindly appealing to its existence,
to inquire whether it was just or unjust, expedient
or inexpedient. Mr. GLA DSTONE disposed very
summarily of this pretended argument in support
of a useless and vexatious enactment : " He must
" say be had merely heard of a cue in which the
" argument of a compact was more easily dealt with
" than in the present instance. He could not I