Northern Times.
Liverpool, Merseyside, England, 1857-07-20 00:00:00

them to become our commercial rivals in the East.
Neither of these arguments will hold water.
We do not profess to be able to foresee the future
of Egypt, or whether it will ever rise into an inde-
pendent kingdom ; and we care not ; and this has
nothing properly to do with the expediency of con-
structing a great pathway for the commerce of the
world. But the second reason is quite unworthy
of a statesman or a political economist. To ordi-
nary understandings not versed in the wiles of
diplomacy it might rather appear that whatever
would improve Egypt would strengthen Turkey, of
which it is a part; just as whatever adds to the
prosperity of Ireland would be so much added to
the advantage of Great Britain. It would surely
be no good reason for opposing improvements in
the sister Island, that one day she might become
powerful enough to demand a separate Parliament
for herself, and that we must keep her poor to keep
her united with as. The answer is—govern Ireland
well, give her entire justice and equality with Scot-
land and England; let it be felt that her interest
is to continue united with us, and there is no fear
that ever she will again set up the cry of repeal.
So, if Egypt is fairly treated by Turkey, there is no
reason to fear that for an indefinite time to come

the Pasha of Egypt will set himself up as a rival to
the Sultan at Constantinople. By strengthening
Egypt we strengthen Turkey, and thereby enable
her better to maintain herself against Russsian and
all other outward enemies. This turns out to be
one of the strongest reasons in favour of the pro-
jected canal. But if in the future history of the
world, and the natural development of nations, it
should ever happen that the kingdom of the ancient
PH...Rom-I's should be severed from the empire of
the Sultan, what concern have we with that? Or is
it for us to regulate the far future of nations? If,
this change is in the natural course of things it is,
no doubt, wise and beneficent, and no plans of ours
can prevent it ; meantime this forms no reason for
resisting an enterprise so grand, and an improve-
ment so world-wide, as the junction of the Medi-
terranean with the Red Sea.

We had long thought that it was a principle
received among social economists, that the good of
one nation was in tendency the good of all ; that
it is mere political superstition and mistake, to
suppose that the injury and degradation of one
nation, can be the advantage of another. We will
not argue this point with the noble Lord, for he
knows it infinitely better than we can tell him ;
and none, upon occasion, can lend it more
eloquent expression ; but, 4,4 by lapse of memory,
it should have escaped him for a moment, we will
politely ask him just to look into his ADAM SMITH,
or MILL. If the Suez canal should expand French
commerce, so much the better for England as well
as for France. In a system of free trade, we shall,
with the rest of the world, have our share of the
benefit. Neither France nor England can really
gain by the depression and weakness of the other.
Their interests are coincident, growing with
each others growth, and strengthening with each
others strength. As to the French contending with
us for supremacy in India, this seems, indeed, a
very remote contingency. We cannot, indeed,
declare it absolutely impossible. It is even
possible that the republic may, next week, be
proclaimed in England, and the Queen courteously
requested to ship herself off to Australia. This is
one possibility, and the French ousting us from
India—or bothering us there—is another ; but we
look upon both as very remote, and not worth
reckoning on. It is surely time that this
miserable jealousy of the French should cease
and determine in England. Shall we never be
allowed to rest in our beds for fear of the French,

whO, at one time, are just preparing to invade
England; and, at another, are just as certain by
setting out to lay siege to India? If the Suez
canal will shorten the way to India and Australia
by some eight thousand miles ; if it will increase
the safety as well as the speed of the voyage; if it

will give us readier access to our Eastern posses-
sions, and so better enable us to defend them in
case of attack ; and, especially, if this artificial
Bosphorus will be a highway of commerce for all
nations—then no people will gain so much by it as
the British. If any nation more than another,
has an interest in expediting and wishing well to
this enterprise, we are that nation. We are glad
to see that the French journals properly appreciate,
the worth and the force of a prime minister's oppo--
sition. Jealousy of the French is very inappro-
priate and out of place at present ; while we are in
strict anxiety and friendship with them, and lately
fought side by side, in defence of European

civilisation. Let such eternal twaddle cease,
once and for ever ! The growing feeling of
England is, we believe, expressed by the poet,
and we hope reciprocated by the French :

" We make no boast of Waterloo," &e.

THE rejection of the Oaths Bill in the House
of Lords, by a majority of thirty-four, has brought
things to a dead lock for the moment ; but such
is our confidence in the elasticity and adaptive-
ness of the British Constitution that we have no
doubt legitimate means will be found to surmount
the difficulty. A meeting of members of the
House of Commons was held on Thursday after-
noon to consider what steps should be taken, and
the subject will be referred to this day again in
the House. It cannot be that the House of Lords
will long have power to stop the way. Four
times have the citizens of London returned as
their representative to Parliament Baron LIONEL
NATHAN ROTHSCHILD, and four times have the
Lords said nay to this deliberately expressed and
repeated election. And now the question is—
what next ? Mr. DILWYN has given notice that
he will propose a resolution to the effect that the
House of Commons shall direct Baron ROTH -
CHILD to take the oath in that form which he feels
binding on his conscience, omitting, therefrom,
the words "on the true faith of a Christian.

On the other hand, Lord JOHN RUSSELL proposes
to proceed by bill ; the purport of the bill to be that
each House should have the power to regulate
the adrnisrlon of its own members, and of course
impost the oaths in such form as they may deer

expedient. Most of the members present at the
meeting seemed to prefer taking Lord JOHN

RUSSELL'S bill in the first instance, at least in the
way of trial, hoping that the Lords may repent
of the obstinacy of their ways, and graciously
yield to the majority in the Commons. The re-

suit is uncertain, though to us it seems more
probable that the Lords will yield; and on this
ground that those noble lords who were absent
from the House the other evening, are sufficiently
numerous to turn the scale, and give a majority
to the Government, if it should please those noble
Lords to see that this is wise, dignified, and in-
dispensable.

We are aware that nothing can, and nothing
should, overawe a British House of Peers, and
we desire not to appeal to their fears ; threat
is not the argument with which they are to be
approached; we rather trust they will yield to
propriety, to their own dignity, to the earnest
demand of the citizens of London who have left
no doubt of their opinions, sanctioned as those
opinions are by the general feeling of the
country, and by sustained majorities of the
Lower House. It is not to be doubted that
great indignation and general disappointment
have been felt at the late decision of the
Lords led, on by the Hotspur of their order—
Lord DERBY. We repeat that we cannot
doubt that the opposition will be over-
come ; for the intelligence, liberality, and
Christian feeling of the nation are arrayed against
the Lords ; and though one Conservative leader
conducts the onslaught in favour of bigotry and ex-
clusiveness, and against equity, Christianity, and
Lord PALMERSTON, yet two others, Messrs.
DISRAELI and Sir JOHN PAKINGTON, vote with
the Liberals.
What then is to be done ? Four courses are
open, Ist, Lord PALMERSTON may be asked to
make this a cabinet question. In that case Lord
DERBY, having before him the possible responsi_
bility of office, might hesitate to commit himself
to a contest in which he is sure to be foiled,
and to be the head of a ministry which must
break down upon the Jewish bill from internal
dissension. What could Lord DERBY do without
DISRAELI and PAKINGTON. The latter indeed
in all essential respects ranks rather with the
Liberals, for Sir JOHN is not ashamed to change
his opinion in obedience to growing evidence
and experience. With the Jewish Bill unsettled,
Lord DERBY dares not assume office. For the
sake of the Conservatives then as well as for
the honour of England, and for the sake of
common justice, this matter of Jewish admission
ought to be settled.
Next, the bill of Lord JOHN RUSSELL may
be tried, and with possible success. There
is, however, one objection to this proceeding

—that it seems to admit that the House of
Commons has not the right to determine the
mode of admitting its own members. The
Lower House is evidently actuated by the desire
to conciliate the Upper, and to avoid doing any
thing that might seem to threaten or overawe.
But it is felt that now it is high time that
something should be done to remove the dead
lock, to untie the Gordian knot. Concession
and conciliation on the part of the country
have reached their limit.
The third method would be for the House of
Commons to admit by re solution N. L. RoTHs-
CHILD to take his seat among them on his taking
that form of oath which he feels to be binding.
Believing in God and in his Prophet Moses, per-
haps his oath taken on the Old Testament is not a
very profane thing. This is the book that the
Apostles of Christianity would have sworn by,
had they been put to their oath. Surely this is bin-
ding enough. If you are not safe with Moses and
the Prophets, neither would you be safe if even
you throw in the Gospels and Epistles. Possibly,
the Commons may be disposed to follow the
wholesome example lately set them by the Lords
in the case of the WENSLEYDALE peerage, and so
regulate the admission of their own members,
without asking leave of Queen or Lords. It
would be only showing a proper respect to the
Lords to copy their example : " the lesson you
teach me I will profit by, and it shall go hard
but I will better the instruction."

The fourth course is to swamp the obstructives
by a creation of new peers. This should be resor-
ted to only in extreme cases ; like an issue of addi-
tional paper money, it tends to depreciate the
currency, to commonise the aristocracy. We trust
the Lords will be wise, and truly read the " signs
of the times." We use constitutional language
when we say that in a pitched battle to be fairly
fought out, the House of Commons is supreme
in this country. Neither the Queen nor the
Lords is the highest power, but the people
is sovereign. This Jewish oath must be settled

in harmony, with justice, common sense,
Christianity, and the voice of the people of
England. We are tired of constantly going over
the same ground without the refreshment of a
novelty in argument. It is a waste of time,
temper, and good sound logic. It is with great
respect, that we would remind the Lords that
they cannot long bar the way of justice and the
people of England ; when the nation throws itself
into the scale, both Queen and Lords must kick
the beam.

THERE is no tie more sacred, honourable, or
important to mankind than that of matrimony,
With the exception bf that foul plague spot on
the map of the 'United States, the Territory of
Utah, the
`principle
acknowiedged and recognised. The villain, of
WilKtever grade, who desecrates the marriage vow,