The Press.
London, England, 1857-05-16 00:00:00

ADMISSION OF JEWS TO PARLIAMENT.

The house having gone into committee,
Lord PALMERSTON rose to move for leave to bring
in a bill substituting an oath for the present oaths of
allegiance, supremacy, and abjuration. Apologising
to Lord John Russell for having taken up a question
with which his name was so much identified, the
noble viscount stated that his only notion had been
to give a better chance of success to the measure.
Addressing himself to the subject of his motion, he
remarked that the time was most apt for the recon-
sideration of the parliamentary oaths when their
tenor was fresh in the minds of newly elected
members. Briefly insisting upon the solemnity of
an oath, and the irreverence attending the introduc-
tion of absurd and impossible conditions in so sacred
a formula, Lord Palmerston proceeded to indicate
the objects of his proposed bill. These, lie said,
were twofold. First, he wished to relieve Chris-
tian members from the obligation to take oaths
revolting to their reason and conscience ; and,
secondly, to sweep away the last remnant of the old
spirit of religious exclusivism, by abolishing the sole
remaining ob'tacle which prevented a Jew from
sitting in Parliament. Leaving untouched the oath
settled, in 1629, as applicable to Roman C xtholics,
be proposed to abrogate the three oaths of allegiance,
supremacy, and abjuration, and substitute a single
oath in which certain selected clauses from the exist-
ing formula would be substantially preserved. The
noble lord then read the oaths of supremacy and
abjuration, mentioning the paragraphs which lie
proposed to cancel, and afterwards stated the terms
of the uath be suggested as a substitute. He then
adverted to the rat i I progress which has been
effected in this country, first in stnying persecution
and afterwards in removing disabilities on account
of religious differences, and contended that we had
no peril to apprehend, and every motive to induce us
to remove the last rag of intolerance.
Sir F. THESIGER intimated his intention of offer.
ing the most strenuous opposition to the measure at

SATURDAY,

a future stage. He briefly sketched the history of
legislation on the subject during the past sixteen
years, dwelling upon the frequent efforts that had
been made, and always baffled, with the view of
securing the admission of Jews to Parliament. His
objections to the bill he declared to be founded
entirely on conscientious motives, and denied that
in desiring still to preserve the Christian character
of the Legislature he was guilty of intolerance.
Lord J- RUSSELL expressed his sincere gratifica-
tion that the subject was taken up by the Prime
Minister. He had no personal objects to secure, wish-
ing merely to secure an ultimate triumph for a mea-
sure of which he had been an earnest and conscien-
tious advocate. He believed that the principle at
issue was that of civil and religious liberty, and was
ready to give all possible assistance to the progress
of the bill at every stage. _ _

Mr. NEWDEGATE, reserving all detailed discussion,
briefly contended that the bill involved a direct attack
upon the Christianity of the Legislature and the

country.
Mr. LOCKE KING and Mr. HENLEY having spoken a
few words,

Lord PALMERSTON stated that he did not propose
to bring forward the bill for second reading until after
the Whitsuntide recess.

The resolution was then agreed to, and leave given
to bring in the bill.

'ATION.

On the motion fur going into committee on the
Transportation Bill,
Lord A. V. TEMPEST moved that the bill should be
referred to a select committee. His object, which
the noble lord explained and defended at some
length, was to have the means investigated whereby
the labour of prisoners could be made remunerative.
Sir G. GREY submitted that ample researches had
already been instituted into the feasibility of the
proposition advocated by the noble lord.
Mr. BAXTER maintained that the prisons ought to
be made to a greater extent than they now were, a
terror to evil doers. He recommended the renewal
of the transportation system, and pointed out the many
advantages presented by the Auckland Islands as a
locale tor convicts.

Mr. BENTINCK supported the amendment.

After some further discussion, in which Mr. P.
Martin, Mr. Adderley, Mr. Williams, and Lord Naas
took part.

LABOUCHERE described some of the obstacles
which prevented a return to the system of transporta-
tion. The question, he said, was not one of money,
but of principle and feeling among the inhabitants
of various colonies, which the British Legislature was
bound to respect.
The amendment was withdrawn, and the house
went into committee on the bill.

On the first clause being proposed,
Mr. KEATING moved an amendment 'designed to
remove from the bill al clauses relating to tickets of
leave. He urged many objections to the system,
which he maintained had created great injury and
alarm among the general community, and had proved
a total failure with regard to its expected reformatory
influence upon the convicts themselves.
The amendment was seconded by Mr. WIIITBREAD.
Sir G. GREY explained the modified principles on
which tickets of leave were hereafter to be employed,
and repeated from a former speech some of the
considerations which, as he submitted, rendered it
expedient to leave with the Executive a discretionary
power for the discharge of prisoners before the
expiration of their terms of sentence.
Mr. HENLEY thought the subject required recon-
sideration.
Mr. MosciiroN .MILNEs believed that the ticket-
of-leave system had been prematurely condemned
under an excess of absurd panic among the public.
The experiment had not been fairly tried, and ought
not to be characterised as a failure.

After some further discussion, in which Mr. Packe,
Mr. Adderley, Mr. Briscoe, Mr. Collins, Mr. Newde-
gate, Lord Naas, and Mr. Beresford Hope took part,
the committee divided :
For the amendment
Against
—9O

The bill then went through committee.
CItigITE mum.
_

On the motion of Mr. Wil.sos leave was given to
bring in a bill for the amendment of the Cinque
Ports Act.
The house adjourned at half-past twelve o'clock.

THE PRINCESS'S THEATRE had a narrow escape from
fire on Wednesday evening. During the representa-
tion of Shakespeare's Richard 11., and in the fourth
act, the crimson curtains of the stage suddenly took fire.
The curtains were instantly seized and torn down by
the attendants of the theatre, and the progress of
the flames was arrested. Mr. Kean came on the
stage, and did all in his power to allay the excite-
ment, which for some time WES extreme, and com-
pelled the cessation of the performance. The
heats° was reopened next a vening as usual.

MAY 16,1857.

trittraturt.

Yarrative of the Defence of Kars. By Colonel

Atwell Lake, C.B. London: Bentley.
THERE is this one remarkable peculiarity in
the siege of Kars, that it is an event on which
both victors and vanquished can look back
with almost equal pleasure. If the win-
ners acquired an important military post,
and bore off as high a reputation for
generosity and courtesy as for dogged and un-
flinching valour, the losers, we must remem-
ber, won a great battle, displayed heroic
endurance, and vindicated before the world
the ancient reputation of the Mussulma n
arms. They gained more in the moral results
of that famous struggle than they lost by its
adverse termination ; and whenever the
degeneracy of the Turkish character is again
the theme of European politicians, the soldiers
of the Crescent will point to Oltenitza and
Silistria, and say that not oven these are
better refutations of the charge than the
bloodstained fortress of Armenia.

It was generally understood when Colonel
Lake's previous volume was given to the
public that he was engaged upon another
work of a more purely scientific character.
Whether the present publication merits that
epithet or not, we must leave to military men
to determine. Wo can only say that we have
learned nothing new ourselves from its
perusal. This may he our own fault, or it
may result front Colonel Lake's deficiency in
graphic power. At all events, when we arrived
at the conclusion of his rather bulky volume,
and strove to register our gains, we found it a
very brief and unsatisfactory process. Colonel
Lake is not a good describer of military
affairs. His narrative is confused. He cannot
raise us above the din and smoke of the battle,
and map out the whole field clearly before us.
In this respect his account of the battle of the
29th of September contrasts most unfavour-
ably with that of General Kmety, published,
as our readers may remember, in a pamphlet
some six or eight months ago. At the same
time, taken as a whole, his work is perhaps
the most complete that has yet appeared upon
the subject, and, from the waning interest of
the events described, is very likely to be the
last. We shall, therefore, notice it at rather
more length than its contents might other-
wise have justified.
On the strategy which dictated the occupa-
tion and defence of Kars in the first instance
Colonel Lake is silent. He notices thlse who
have alleged that a retreat should have been
attempted at an earlier stage of the contest,
in some half dozen lines (page 314) ; and
perhaps it may fairly be said that the risks
of remaining, diminished by the possibility of
relief, were not greater than the hazard of a
retreat with a dispirited army, in the face of
so powerful an opponent. But this leaves the
original question untouched. How far was it
judicious to place the Turkish army in such
a dilemma? That is the point we desire to
see investigated by some competent military
writer. To us Kars has alwa3s seemed to
have been very much like a trap, and that if
the Russians could have been enticed into it,
instead of the Turks, the horrors of starva-
tion would have fallen upon them instead of
our allies. High military authorities have
pronounced against the policy of its occupa-
tion, and Colonel Lake's evasion of the point
looks much like a confession of inability to
meet it.

In his account of the battle of the 29th of
September, Colonel Lake says not a syllable
in reply to General Kmety's charges against
the English commander in-chief. The gal-
lant Hungarian, it will be remembered, alleged
that his own share in the battle had been most
unjustifiably ignored by General Williams,
not only in his despatches, but also in the
public speeches which he delivered on his
return to this country. General Kmety's
position is that he won the battle of Kars—
that the last instructions given him by
General Williams were as early as the month
of July—that after this he was left "to dispose
"of the troops and field artillery on the pla-
" teau of Tachmas as he might deem advisa-