The Sun.
London, England, 1850-08-05 00:00:00

however, the integrity of Denmark, the rights of
Schleswig, the cupidity of Holstein, and the general
quietude of the European continent are far from
being dependent upon the whims of a few
German statesmen, or upon the infatuation
of two or three confederated principalities. Against
any such preposterous notion the Liberal Monarchy
of England has now raised its voice loudly, min-
gled with the coincident voices of the Swedish
Cabinet, the Russian despotism, and the French
democracy. Against this formidable unanimity
the " paper pellets" of the Austrian and Prussian
diplomatists must, fall altogether powerless. The
Governments at Berlin and Vienna may continue
restive for some time longer, but ultimately they
will find themselves compelled, however reluc-
tantly, to yield to the indignant resolution of four of
the great Powers of Christendom. More especially
must this, as we have already intimated, prove the
inevitable consequence of the recent protocol initialled
on the 4th of July, and formally signed on the 2d of
August, bearing in mind the contemporaneous suc-
cesses secured by the Danish forces to the Government
at Copenhagen.
Nothing whatever by this time remains to be
said in illustration of the justice of the claims
put forward by Denmark, in opposition to those of
her unprincipled antagonists. Every argument bear-
ing upon the question so long at issue has
not only been given by ourselves with the utmost
possible particularity, but each of these arguments
has again and again been subjected to the closest
analysis with an iteration a 3 painstaking as monoto-
nous. Nevertheless, before leaving this subject of the
protocol, we may perchance not inappropriately direct
the attention of all those who are in any degree in-
terested in these transactions to the casuistry
observable among the apologists of Prussian in-
trigue. It will be remarked above all that
the advocates of this atrocious war against
Denmark are perpetually harping upon the rights of
independence generally appertaining to the Duchy of
Schleswig-Holstein. The phrase, in point of fact, is
nothing more than a mere sophistical absurdity. To
be plain, those rights of independence said to be-
long to the Duchy of Schleswig-Holstein are
wholly and entirely incomprehensible, seeing that no
such duchy as Schleswig-Holstein has ever been in
existence. There is a duchy called Holstein,
and another duchy called Schleswig, but a
joint duchy entitled Schleswig-Holstein is
a mere myth and unreality, existing solely in the
avaricious depths of some Prussian or other Ger•
man imagination. To talk, therefore, of the rights
of independence appertaining to the Duchy of Schles-
wig-Holstein is to do nothing more nor less than to
talk nonsense and prevaricate. To say that Den-
mark cannot justly assume to itself, as an
integral portion of its continental dominions,
the Duchy of Schleswig-Holstein is wilfully to per-
vert the claims advanced by that Monarchy,
and to involve in obscurity the actual boundaries of
its dominions. Denmark, in truth, never has pre-
tended to claim as one of its integral portions this same
hypothetical or supposititious Duchy of Schleswig-
Holstein. Holstein it has all along regarded and treated
as one among the confederated states of Germ any.
Schleswig, and Schleswig alone, has been claimed by
Denmark as an integral portion of the Danish do-
minions. The struggle, in short, has been, not a
struggle on the part of Denmark to wrest
Holstein from its alliance with the German Confede-
ration, but a struggle on the part of the insurgents of
the latter duchy, aided by their confederates in Ger-
many, to wrest Schleswig from the possession of
Denmark. Against this flagrant attempt at territo-
rial theft the inexorable judgment of the French,
Swedish, Russian, and British Governments
has pronounced its stern fiat of indignation.
Prussia and her German accomplices stand
before the bar of European opinion formally
impeached of treason attempted against the rights of
Christendom. Added to the disgrace of their crime,
is the shame of its unwilling expiation. The robbery
adventured upon against Denmark has been simulta-
neously prevented by the victory gained at Idstedt
and by the protocol signed at London. The double
advantage thus secured to the Danish Monarch can-
not fail to carry confusion to the councils at Berlin,
and the fullest confidence and joy to the Government
at Copenhagen.

It has been long since admitted that the House of
Commons could claim but little confidence in its
juoicial capacity. Its decisions on the class of cases
that usually come before it—election petit ions—were
so proverbially uncertain, and frequently erroneous,
being 'cased on no fixed or ascertained rules, but de-
termined rather according to party bias than the
principles of justice and equity, that it was deemed
essential to change the constitution of the tribunal,
and to refer all disputed questions to Select Corn-
mittees, whose decisions should be final and conclusive
on such points. The change was undoubtedly effected li
during the good old time., when Gatton and Old I
Sarum sent each two Members to the popular branch
of the Legislature, while Manchester and Bii ming
ham were unrepresented, when a demand for reform
was considered a species of petty treason, and when
" purity of election" was deemed an Utopian aspira-
tion that could never be realised. But although the
constitution of the House has been extensively altered
by a large infusion of the democratic element,
and although some degree of respect must
now be paid to the voice of public opinion, the House
is still but little qualified to discharge the judicial
functions fairly or impartially. Its chief defect in
that respect is that " the judges" are too numerous ;
many of them, indeed a large majority, being altoge•
then ignorant of the true principles of legal interpre-
tation, will pin their faith on some recognised leader,
and vote according to his dictation, rather than the
real merits of the case. And thus a question of no
ordinary importance will be this day decided--
a question involving not merely the rights
and privileges of such of our fellow-
subjects as may profess the Jewish religion, but
those of the citizens of London—one of the
most important, if not the most important of the
constituencies of the British empire—and what
is, perhaps, of deeper interest than either,
the character and reputation of a body of which
Englishmen have been in many particulars justly
proud, and of which they have been accustomed to
boast as " the first legislative assembly in the world."
The issue, although of such vital importance, is
really perfectly simple. The question between the
first resolution of which the Attorney-General has
given notice, and to which we directed the public
attention on Friday last, and the counter proposition
about to be brought forward by the veteran Member
for Montrose, the zealous, honest, and consistent
JosErH HOME, merely hangs on the concluding
words of the oath of abjuration, "on the true faith
of a Christian"—whether they are to be regarded as
matter "of form" or "of substance," a portion of
things sworn to or sworn by, a part of the adjuration
intended to give additional solemnity to the oath, or
a solemn pledge in itself to show that the person pro-
fesses the Christian faith ? If a just and liberal deci-
sion should be arrived at—if a judgment should be
given such as we have no hesitation in say-
ing any court of law or equity would pronounce
on the premises, the matter will at once be disposed
osbtl'a nmacnd Baron RT
eos of fbtihned binding
oath
ni innhsics the
conscience,ln having
manner
taken
h we
h lih efodr
et the hi
forthwith
te sb-
hdu
bto
e
entitled to take his seat, and to vote on all questions
of public policy that may be brought underthe
con-
sideration
of the House. If, however, it shouldbe
otherwise, then " the penalty" he is to endure for
his contumacy, so far as the same comes within the
jurisdiction of the House, must be apportioned. His
seat must either be declared vacant, and a
new writ issued for the city of London, or
he must be debarred from voting or sitting
until he shall comply with the objectionable form,
using an adjuration which he declares not to be bind-
ing on his conscience, or until an Act of Parliament
be passed to relieve him from the penal consequences
of worshipping his CREATOR in the manner which in
his heart and soul he deems most fitting.

This last course is the branch of the alternative
proposed by the Attorney-General, and which will be
supported by all-the strength and power of the Go-
vernment. As we have already stated, there is a great
repugnance entertained by Ministers to any decision
that would enforce a new election for the
city of London—a new and_ powerful
demonstration by its citizens against the
bigo-t7y-aud ilitolertinCe cf the hereditary jegislatore, ,