The Press. — London, England, 1858-04-03 00:00:00

. . . if .:7411 .. . / /12 / 1 ,10i,e- ~ • "'I "I i r',....;! ! 1!3,11:11 a 1,1 :i rt-t..y.. t ________•,__....-.--......"--..-. 1:77 I r .',, I t .. .. t ent,• • , t t re b No. 257.—V0L. VI. LONDON, SATURDAY, APRIL 3, 1858. Oe dress. This system, it is now generally agreed, is to bo destroyed, and a new kind of government, in the name of the Queen, is to succeed it. Other important possessions, such as Canada and Australia, are allowed to govern themselves, by Assemblies or Legislatures of their own election. This mode of government is easily put in motion in such colonies as these—inasmuch as the population of both Canada and Australia is predominantly Eng lish ; and, so long as solf-government, is freely granted. it is not likely that any cause for alienation will arise. But self-government in India is wholly out of the question. No statesman has ever hinted at the possibility of LONDON, SATURDAY, APRIL 3, 1858. such a thing. A Government, then, for India has to be provided in England. The empire has fairly outgrown its administrators. When the Com pany had a million or two of people under its - authority, its business was conducted by a . . , STAMPED .... SIXPENCE. UNSTAMPED..FIVEPENCE. The House of Commons had decided, by g large majority, that it would proceed with some Bill. The Company was, therefore, virtually condemned ; its extinction could in no way be avoided, and to keep it in a state of suspended animation was clearly not desira ble. The Cabinet of Lord DERBY resolved, therefore, to propose a Bill, but not to take up Lord PALMERSTON'S, seeing that that mea sure had not obtained many suffrages. A new Bill, consequently, was required to be framed. And, by common consent, the Go vernment of India was in future to be vested in a President or Secretary of State, and a Council. In this general outline all parties seemed to be agreed. On the rank and power of the President, or Secretary of State, there could not be much difference of opinion. The main ground of controversy was found in the other limb of the question : THE NEW INDIA. BILL. Tuts measure has furnished an ample field for hostile criticism during the past week. Open enemies, concealed enemies, and " candid friends" have all borne their part; and the result has been, that a plan which un questionably struck many Liberals at first sight (such as Mr. Villas and Mr. SLANEY in Parliament and the Daily News in the press) as being " a great improvement on Lord PAL NERSTON'S Bill," has latterly lost ground,"tind, under the pressure of many hostile tongues, remark. These are :- 1. That the only criticism which tells against the Bill is that which appeals to John Bull's prejudice—an honest and praiseworthy prejudice, we admit, but still a prejudice — against all novelties. And— 2. That amongst a whole army of acute critics, not one, as far as we have seen, has propounded or suggested a plan which the people of England would prefer to the pre sent Bill. That the present Bill contains some novel. ties, is unquestionably true ; but equally cer. tain is it that no measure of a satisfactory kind can be adopted in this matter which does not contain something new. The position —the requirements of the case, are new, and such as cannot be met by the old, worn-out provisions of former bills. The object which is to be attained by this Bill is an object which no such Bill ever ven• tured to contemplate before. We have had, in times past, India Bills which accepted the existing state of things, and merely aimed at making some slight improvements. But the preeent Bill, it is quite decided, is to make a total change in the system and plan of govern ment by which an empire of one hundred and eighty millions of people, or about one-fifth part of the human race, is in future to be carried on. And how is this prodigious object to be attained, without the use of some things hitherto untried ? Even in smaller matters, the man who is to do what no man before him ever attempted, must not be blamed if he makes use of means which none of his prede cessors ever dreamed of employing. A great empire has been ruled and administered, heretofore, by a Board of Directors, elected by a few thousands of " East India proprietors." of Directors, elected by the holders of stock. But now, when the Indian empire exceeds all Europe in population, and is second only to the enormous empire of China, it seems to be admitted, by general consent, that some larger and more fitting method of government and administration must be provided than that which sufficed in the days of the First and Second GEORGES. But, if this great question is to be properly dealt with, the plan propounded and adopted must inevitably contain something new. The first proposal was that of Lord PAL• MERSTON. He simply abolished the Company and its government, and made the President of the Board of Control the future ruler of India. A Council was to be given to him, but a Council only resembling the Council of the First Lord of the Treasury. The Treasury has its four puisne lords ; the India Board was to have its eight councillors. But, as no one imagines that the puisne Lords of the Treasury have the least share in directing the course of the Government, so no one could suppose that these eight Indian councillors, appointed by the Crown, and liable to re appointment or discontinuance, could have been anything more than so many gentle manly assistants and advisers to the President ; helping him with their counsel and the results of their experience, but having no practical weight in the government of India. We have met with no one person, even among Lord PALMERSTON'S adherents, who will say that his Lordship's India Bill was a good one ; or that it ought to pass, as it was proposed. The present Government accepted office while the question was in this predicament. . to decide. Rumour is just now busy with the newer that Lord PALM ERSTON actually means to push) forward his own Bill, hoping to defeat the l Government on this question. But, the maim point of controversy being the composition of , the Council, can the late Premier bring for- t ward one man of influence and impartiality, who will aver that he approves of Lord PAL MIRSTON'S council of eight, and thinks it prefer able to the plan of the present Ministry? Why, amongst the whole press of London, Lord PALMERSTON has not had a more faithful adherent than the Morning Post, and the Morning Post itself declares that a council of eight would be too weak, and that fifteen would be a better number. There are two points on which we should gladly take the decision of the House of Com mons, could it be assembled, on Monday next, without a single hour's debate; to wit :- 1. Is not a council of eighteen preferable to a council of eight? 2. Is it not desirable to have some infusion of the representative principle? On the first point, we feel that no argument is needed. For the transaction of business, in committees and sub-committees, eight men would be quite too few. And, in moral power, acting as some check on the otherwise des potic President, eight men, nominated practi cally by himself, would be evidently too weak. On the second question, it is to be remem bered 1 it 46 bered that India has been governed for a . • • , series of years by a Board of DirectoEp, ......;.. by men having a personal interest itrA 1 13 • government of the country. In theosa ~, .. ii ' " progress," to sweep away a rep , D 'l l l ui .. ..% 1, 114 ~~-mil - ~ ~ f ) • IMlNlummimmai .;; 3 f*t r ' . tr.