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

and even Lord P.

Thus this poor, writaliCilloase of Commons
is to be sent about its Minima not, like other
Houses, for its impracticality or its pugnacity,
but simply for its worthlessness.
Does this charge rest on a good and suffi-
cient basis? BALAAM abused his ass on very
similar grounds ; yet the Prophet was wrong and
the ass was right. May not Lord PALIIIIRBTON,
like the Prophet, have attempted to force his
useful servant into a closed-up path ? Let us
look at the task which the late Premier required
his own House of Commons to perform.
A document arrived in this country, about
three weeks since, of a very momentous and
Questionable character. It is merely absurd to
represent the surprise and alarm caused by Lord
CANNING'S Proclamation as existing among the
Conservatives chiefly or solely. The Liberals in
Parliament who are not imbued with Whiggism
dislike that Proclamation as much as the Con-
servatives ; the Liberals out of doors almost
unanimously condemn it. That the Govern-
ment, therefore, should feel alarm and disappro-
bation at that Proclamation, and should express
those feelings in a Secret Despatch, is no crime.
LATEST EDITION.

all these the four

privy to the secretion ! Here was a third cause
for disgust and revulsion.
On the very eve of the final debate and division
there appeared another fact of vast importance ;
namely, that Sir JA MIS 0 UTRAM, the best qualified
man in India to give a judgment in the matter, had
protested against Lord CANNING'S . course as

strongly as Lord ELLENBOROUGH himself had
done. So that those who inclined to the popular
view were now confirmed in their feelings of
dislike by an opinion given by a man of the
highest knowledge and experience.
Let these facts be practically applied. The
House of Commons contains nearly 200 members
who, though they originally took their seats as

. _
supporters of Lord PALMERSTON, are free men—
not Whigs, nor bound by family compacts. To

could not but come with weight : to wit,—

scruples of the
religion."

1. The whole movement, cloaked under the
name of India, was notoriously aimed at Down-
ing-street.
_ _ _

Now, this
what the House

2. It proposed to punish fifteen men, for an
indiscretion committed by one of the fifteen,
without the knowledge of the rest; he, the

month since,

times before,

and ,
_ lawfitl for
Lords and for the House of Commons, respec-
tively, by resolution of the House, to determine
that the form of the said oath, so far as such oath
rests upon or refers to the Christian faith, shall,
_ . _ .
for the purpose
Watered to persons
be modified, fl
accordingly
House shall seem
I
above stated of the said oath

without any change of

to account

Commons is one utterly untenable on any ;ea: pulous as these. That the
mashie or consistent ground The House empire should be risked on a e
of Oseesseas eannot yield to threats without that a whole Ministry should
materially dot ffieff its influence, and therefore
shortening its ensessee. The unaffected terror an act of which all but 01
of meeting its consdtuents is a sr , were entirely inn
' •
ducement to the present arbiters d _
_mwity spirit which
, .
send it to them. A House that 41
kennerable mind. B
efficient support to neither side is 145 ,
1. IN r• out that the accusers of the I
already, and only awaits the
tion. Before Friday niento selvesd been guilty of conduct
Parliament would have a alloy political which they imputed to their
offence ; the time may mow when it from Lord CANNING, on publi
will be universally in an inevitable received and secreted by the ei
political necessity." -,".... '
/ . A and even Lord PALMERSTO:

?ose only of such oath being admi-
ersons professing the Je ....h religion,
and to make iipollr7l,_rs• tion
in such manila
~.. - 71,..1 ejg
t
seem best calcul mt. ..
-- 741', ji
ath to the horfsit "•:11— cal(
he said persons . 1 ,..• • .
:,••
ovA
amendment i. .. kil ' ~ t
mse of Lords ~,L'llielidAd? - 'd
and had refu• • Wt.ir4l-.1-- ill--ga.-'....-..... •
'4..atit % -
it shall now quiet to do,

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 ijgw* 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.