NEWS OF THE WEEK.
Minimum have sustained two serious disgraces this week— their Jew Bill has been thrown out in the Lords ; and they have gained a victory in the Commons by eating their old words on the Colonial system.
The Lords Spiritual and Temporal have vindicated their inde- pendence by rejecting the Oaths Bill. From the singular tame- ness of the debate, one would scarcely have expected that the Peers would have exercised so much spirit ; but they probably felt encouraged by the hesitating manner of Lord John Russell in doing the suit and service for his London seat. A duller de- bate was seldom sustained; enlivened by few sallies. Lord Brougham contributed a sortie against Dr. Wilberforce for sup- posing that judges are mere tools to administer the law, bound by fixed rule. The Archbishop of Canterbury's respectable station and character forbid his connexion of the Jew Bill with the revolutions on the Continent to be taken as a joke ; but the Bishop of-Oxford's new argument against the bill must certainly be banter. He anticipated danger from the admission of a Jew, lest his wealth should attain for him an undue influence. No doubt, 'formidable influence might .be exencised by some Jews sitting to overawe and coerce theinettehnars in the making of laws; yet surety Members ought to maintain their independence by tier conduct. Bat Baron t's Rothschild is no Shylock ; and if the proverbial wealth ofihe Hebrew is to possess Buchan overwhelming infloence, the more shame to the Christians Who we =sieved by an influence 9 low-the more shame to the Spiritual instructors of a people so debased. The immediate consequence of the rejection of this bill has been Baron de Rothschild's acceptance of the Chiltern steward- ship, and his coming forward as a candidate for the seat which he vacates. The neeessity or advantage of the resignation, when he did not mean to withdraw, is not self-evident. Such a course has been followed before, but not, we believe, without some com- pulsion, or some change which made it decorous. Wilkes, who was so obstinately reelected, had been expelled. Sir Robert Peel resigned his seat for Oxford University, because he saw cause to change his course on an important question connected with the tenure of the seat. Other statesmen have done the like on other cceasions for similar reasons. But there is no reason to suppose that either Baron de Rothschild or his constituents have changed; in that unless he were to vacate his seat for the purpose, bona fide, of admitting to his place an effective Member free to speak and vote, there appears to:be no use in resigning. The hubbub of a new election may serve the Whigs in some way intelligible to AVhigs—by "pressure from without," or as a cover to their failure. It may also serve those traders in "agitation" the Par- liamentary agents. But it will hardly advance any public interest.
In a most lucid exposition of the actual system, or rather actual defiance of system which prevails in the Colonial administration, Sir William Molesworth proposed a method of introducing har- mony and order. He showed in what way many of our Colo- nies are debarred from the reputed birthright of Englishmen, self...government; how in those which professedly possess free institutions the representation is a sham, the Colonies being governed by a minority in the Legislative Assembly acting in cmjunction with a majority of Crown nominees in the Council ; hew expense is lavished on the Colonies without practical benefit to them or us ; and how the resources of colonization, pregnant with benefit both to parent country and colons-, are wasted for Want of definite rules. He proposed a Royal 6ommission to in- vestigate the principles which ought to regulate the Colonial ad- enniaration ; so as to establish a settled standard, for the guid- ance of successive Ministers, by which some sort of accord might be introduced into the rule of the Colonial Office. Ministers Met, this motion with a style of argument that merits no name but that of prevarication. Mr. Hawes declared that the Inquiry would be impracticable and illusory,—impracticable,
from the complicated nature of the Colonial wants and griev- ances; illusory, because the Commission could not report under five years. He objected to things not contemplated by Sir William Molesworth, who called for no judgment on specific grievances, attacked no person ; hut, by raising false issues, Mr. Hawes
seemed to be contradicting Sir William, and at all events diverted
attention. Mr. Labouchere and Lord John Russell reechoed Mr. Hawes with an unanimity which proved the defence to have been arianged in council. They assume that all is as it should be; the speeches they used to make in Opposition notwithstand- ing. The only thing wanted, besides Sir James Stephen—still present—was the conjunction of Hawes and Grey with that as- tute closet politician. Lord John avows a great aversion from any course which tends to fixity of principles : the absence of fixity is the price, he says, of freedom. It is best to take up
each question as it is wanted : the only requisite to that empiri- calplan, he says, is that the Colonies should be "reasonable" in
their demands, and that Ministers should he "moderate." Now the contemporary facts show how far Lord John's is a practice' suggestion. At present each question is taken up as it arises;
and as there is no settled principle for dealing with such ques- tions, the Minister is always at a loss, always unprepared, always dilatory, often rash and wrong ; and hence we have disaffection, stoppage of supplies, rebellions. To say nothing of Lord Grey's i • demands on various colonies, are the demands of the colonists n British Guiana, Trinidad, Jamaica, the Cape' New Zealand, and
other colonies, "reasonable" or not? if not, Lord John's plan is thrown down by a living refutation ; if those claims are reason- able, why are they not granted? In all these instances, and several others besides, the dispute first arises about some unsettled principle ; it continues because there is no agreement on principles; it would cease, or would never have arisen, if settled principles were distinctly laid down. If a Commission composed even of Ministers themselves were to record
such a settlement of principles, it would be better than nothing. At present they wander in /ignorance,. because they have 'not- searched. They de not know .what ikie they might to grant to-- e5,, lies, what to exact—what are Imperial, what Colonial claitnin Yes Imperial chino might easily be specified, for they all fell
within four categories,—international communication, which must be conducted by the Imperial Government ; inviolability of the Empire, which includes defence. in war; invioldbility of the subject, the Englishman looking to his Supreme Government thsit none of his fundamental rights be infringed ; inviolability of the Crown, defended by the law of high treason, which should be administered by Imperial authority. The disposal of all affairs not specifically reserved in such categories should be given up to the Colonies, absolutely. We can imagine but one reason for not doing so—that it would also be the surrender of patronage. That Ministers have themselves no settled views on these matters, is proved by their newest Colonial measure, Mr. Hawes's Australian
Constitution Bill—that ignis fatuus, which again disappearedi and yet again glimmers in the Votes and Proceedings as "Aus- tralian Colonies (No. 2) Bill "—" second reading deferred till Monday "
But if Ministers remain in this stationary or rather retrograde condition, and if they obtain the amount of unthinking, support usually given to "the Government.," opinion has made great way in the House of Commons. Mr. Gladstone's speech is an event : it not only proclaims sound doctrine, but marks out a man of the official class as a qualified master of that done, as a states- man prepared to act upon it. And with him go nearly ninety Members of the House—ninety men stepping out from all poli- tical sections, to support a more positive and enlightened Colonial policy. Mr. Pearson has at last contrived to renew his debate on Prison Discipline—adjourned from May the 15th to June the 27th; rather too long an interval in the thread of discourse for the most ingenious " piecer" to reunite it. After a feeble and vague decla- ration of Ministerial notions, which do not let one know Whether the Government is to stand by existing plans or to permit an experiment on Mr. Pearson's, his motion was withdrawn till "next session."
Mr. Spooner's Protection for Women Bill was more fortunate. Sir John Jervis spoke against the second reading with the most crushing proof that the bill is impracticable and self-defeating; and then he walked out of the house without voting, while other members of the Government reinforced the majority for the measure! In fact, they have not the " pluck " to stand by their own opinion : they think the bill absurd, but think also that it
looks respectable "to affirm the principle " ; so they join in giving Mr. Spooner a delusive victory, to maul him at leisure in the later stages.
