The Press.
London, England, 1858-03-20 00:00:00

THE PRESS, MARCH 20, 1858.

And I presume those Jews who are so eager to represent
Englishmen in a British Parliament read this, and they
will tell you believe in, and hope for such a consummation.
Now, it appears to me if such is the case for Jews, they
show a wonderful disregard of money and convenience, in
being willing to take upon themselves the trouble and ex.
pense of an election, when, according to their own showing,
it is their heartfelt hope they may not be able to enjoy
either the honour or the seal for more than twelve months.

Let it be understood that these objections are raised in
all kindliness of spirit, for it would be a cause of great
grief to me, were 1 considered as one of those who are
ungrateful to English people for benefits received, deeply
sensible as I am of the spirit of liberality and enlighten-
ment pervading the breasts of thosse gentlemen who advo-
cate this cause in the British Legislature; nevertheless,
let me here inform them of the opposition they are likely
to meet from out the ranks of that nation whose liberty
they think to consolidate by their advocacy. Not because
Jews are disunited in their feelings of thankfulness, but
because the more educated are aware that whatever is
likely to sever class from close, must eventually be detri-
mental to a cause, the strength of which lies is its unity.
Lastly, Mr. ANDERSON assures us that he is not
peculiar in these opinions :

These are the views of many of my people. The time
has come when a warning voice should be raised, lest our
people fade away from the wall. This is our argument,
and these our reasons. As the individual exponent, seek-
ing no praise, I am prepared for opposition, asking but
that toleration which I am at all times willing to concede;
with God's blessing, I hope soon to see Jews of every
class and country imbued with a strong sense of their
own dignity and importance as a nation, and how little
those qualities are augmented by disunion or indifference,
which must be the inevitable result of Jews sitting as
legislators in the British Parliament.

We have some recollection of having hoard,
on a former occasion, that Sir MOSES MONTE-
FIORE was not of the same mind on this matter
with Baron ROTHSCHILD. And, in fact, the
separate character which has always belonged
to this ancient race, and the apparent proba-
bility, from many passages of Scripture, that
they are still isolated from all other people, in
order to their final return to their own land—
these circumstances seem to favour Mr.
ANDERSON'S view ; and we are not surprised to
find him asserting that these are the hopes
and expectations of " many of his people."

THE DUKE OF CAMBRIDGE ON THE
ARMY.
THE speech of his Royal Highness the Duke
of CAMBRIDGE on Wednesday last is distin-
guished by all that manliness and frankness
for which the present Royal Family have
always been famous. These qualities have
made them favourites with the people, and we
feel that his Royal Highness was perfectly
justified in his declaration that he was
" sure what ho said would be believed." The
people of England, therefore, may now feel
confident that they have at last arrived at an
authentic source of information, and that the
assertions of his Royal Highness afford a
safe basis of investigation. We have toiled
laboriously up the scale of knowledge, glean-
ing what we could from hearsay, from the
public press, and from the " questions" of ac-
tive members of Parliament. We have formed
such inductions as we could, and now at last
we arrive, like the Platonic inquirer, at the
top of the subject, and may prepare to
descend it again by the infallible deductive
process.

The Duke of CAMBRIDGE is fully aware of
the miserable barrack accommodation pro-
vided for our soldiers. He has spoken to the
" proper persons," and the proper persons
have told him that nothing can be done, for
they had no money. We can well imagine his
Royal Highness's indignation, compelled to
administer a system, which his own feelings
condemned, and to share the odium of mis-
management for which he was in no degree
responsible. We can imagine his dis-
gust at seeing first the unmistakeable dissa-
tisfaction of the people at this ill-judged parsi-
mony, and then at being told that the repre-
sentatives of the people would do nothing to
remove it. We do not wonder at his seizing
the opportunity of clearing his own character,
and of placing the issue entirely out of his

TIM

267

own hands. The fact is, it would be difficult
to find a better instance of those " shams''
which too often result from our present system
of government. The people are nut averse to
granting their money. All experience shows
that. Public men are not averse to spending
it. All experience shows that too. In this
particular instance, there was no doubt
about the propriety of the object of expendi-
ture ; and yet, alter all, owing to a system of
official mystification, the money is not forth-
coming.

No doubt low estimates are popular with
the country ; but we are a businesslike
people, and have epitomised the mischief of
false economy into a national proverb. We
are also a generous people, and never object
to the enjoyment of comforts, and even luxu-
ries, by our servants, whether public or pri-
vate. The House of Commons has frequently
objected to the maintenance of larger
standing armies than the circumstances
of the day seemed to warrant. But
that assembly would never have denied
the necessity of furnishing whatever force we
maintained, with all necessary appliances. A
small but efficient army was, a few years ago,
all the country really required, and it would
have been far better to have reduced its nume-
rical strength even still further than to have
impaired its physical energies by unnecessary
exposure and unwholesome accommodation.
It is easy to understand why of the two things
number should have been preferred to condi-
tion. Improved barracks do not give more
commissions, or in any way increase the
Ministerial patronage. And when the two in-
terests clash, we do not require to be told
which will go to the wall.
The whole case is really very bad indeed.
The disgusting system which has so lately been
exposed must have been perfectly well known
for years. It is clear that the Commander-in-
Chief is not to blame for these abominations.

Who then is it? Let him or they be dragged
into the daylight. Truth, it is said, lies at
the bottom of a well. In this case we fear it
is at the bottom of a cesspool. But we must
have it out. The people cannot rest under
the imputation that the sanitary welfare cf
the soldiers has been sacrificed to the popular
enthusiasm for libraries and reading-rooms.
We know there is a great deal of cant about
the educational zeal of the age. We have no
more faith than our neighbours, perhaps less,
in the efficacy of mechanics' institutes, and
all that savours of the same. But we believe
that barrack reading-rooms do good, and,
above all, we believe that the people intended
them to be an unqualified boon to the army.
It is most unfair to turn round upon them, as
" the proper persons " seem to have done,
and charge them with having purposely cur-
tailed the soldier's comforts to carry out their
own hobby. This is like the master who
gives his servant a holiday, and then
stops it out of his wages. The fact is,
no doubt, as his Royal Highness states
it to be, and we are certain that if he
had his own way it would very speedily be
altered. What we have a right to complain of
is this, that the country was not warned of the
truth earlier. If any Minister had come down
to Parliament, and said that he knew how
desirsble economy was, but that there were
certain gross deficiencies in our military
arrangements with which the people should be
made acquainted, and that they would then
determine whether anything should be done
or not, can we doubt what the answer
would have been? Instead of this, it
has been the practice of late years to bolster
up accounts ; to make a mystery of the
merest trifles ; and then to accuse the people
of parsimony, when their only fault was they
did not like to pay in the dark. The people
had a general notion that our military e2c-
penditure might be lowered, but they never
intended to rob the grenadier of his washing-
bason. Had the question been represented to
them in its true light, they would not have
hesitated for a moment. But they naturally
did not dream that while providing aliment
for the soldier's mind, they could be supposed
capable of wishing to perpetuate indecencies
which must neutralise all the good effects of
mental culture.

LORD J. RUSSELL AND THE "MONOPOLY
OF REFORM."
THE bitterness of Lord JOHN IRUSSELL in the
debate of Monday last can easily be under•
stood by those familiar with his present aims
and past habits. For several years the Noble
Lord has lived in the belief that England had
no other statesman equal to dealing with the
subject of Parliamentary Reform, and his
Lordship is now irritated that Lord DERBY'S
Cabinet has announced to the country that it
will in due time take the subject of Reform
into their consideration. Nor is it from the
Conservatives alone that Lord J. RUSSELL
dreads an aggression on his Reform monopoly.
In his own connection there are many am-
bitious " Liberals " who think that the vacil-
lation of the Noble Lord on this long-standing
question is a strong proof that lie does not pos-
sess the qualities required for the head of a
party seeking to come into office upon a new
Reform Bill.
Lord JOHN RUSSELL on Monday attacked Mr.
DISRAELI with studied purpose. The Noble
Lord went down to the House with an extract
from the CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER'S
speech at Aylesbury, and he then set about
distorting the obvious meaning of Mr. Drs.
BARU'S language. It was a poor artifice of
Lord J. RUSSELL to attempt to fasten upon the
CHANCELLOR Of the EXCHEQUER an accusation
that the Right Honourable Gentleman brought
unfounded charges against the memories of
Earl GREY and Lord ALTHORP. The CHAN-
CELLOR of the EXCHEQUER said nothing of the
statesmen of that day, and his whole language
on the subject is in nowise inconsistent with
what fell from the Earl of DERBY in the House
of Lords on March the Ist. After reminding
the Peers that he (Lord DERBY) had been in
the Cabinet at the time of the Reform Bill,
the Noble Earl said—" When I look back to
" the violence of feeling, to the bitterness of
" political excitement and of party spirit, and
" to the passion which accompanied the carry-
" ing of that great measure," &c. &c. Surely
Lord DERBY knows as much of the history of
those days as Lord JOHN RUSSELL ; and it is
rather singular that the Noble Member for
London does not call the Noble Earl to account
for having testified to the "violence," "bitter-
ness," " party spirit," and " passion " of those
extraordinary times.
Oh! but it was the accusation of " jobs "
having been then done that rouses the wrath
of Lord J. RUSSELL. The Whigs, of course,
never indulge in any of " the jobbery of
" Liberalism." There never was a Whig
Minister who cared to look after his Scotch
cousins. And Mr. HORSMAN, also, was in error
when he alluded, amidst " loud cheers," to
" the shabby nepotism which in the county
" of Kent and at Manchester filched profes-
" sional appointments from their legitimate
" claimants. The Whigs, of course, are so
completely pure that there were no jobs at all
perpetrated in times of " violence," " bitter.
ness," and "party spirit." We indulge in no
personal censures on the memories of Earl
GREY and of Lord ALTHORP when we say that
in the excitement of that period several petty
connections and factious subordinates did
avail themselves of the general confusion, and
obtained very singular settlements about
borough boundaries, so as to favour certain
localities, to the great detriment of the Con-
servative connection generally. It would be
easy to give to Lord Jolla RUSSELL a list of
some of those cases; but if we were to do so,
the cry from the Liberals would then be—
"Oh ! Sir Harry This and Mr. That are now
" no more, or they are old and enfeebled, and
"it is a shame for you to attack them." Be-
sides, when the Conservative party was formed
by the junction of the Duke of WELLINGTON
and Sir E. PEEL with the Duke of IticnmoND,
Earl of DERBY (then Mr, Stanley), and Sir J.