The Press. — London, England, 1854-08-05 00:00:00

AUGUST 5, 1854. CHARLES WOOD draws his inspiration in all cases from the India-house, instead of making the India-house draw its inspiration from him, the answer of the India Board was to the same purport as that which he had got from the India-house before. He then appealed to the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council; but, in their judgment in the case, they declared that, on technical grounds, it was one which it was beyond their jurisdiction to inquire into unless directed to do so by the Crown. At the same time they remarked that the case appeared to them a very fitting one to come before them, should her Majesty be pleased to refer it to them; and they fit ther expressed their willingness, in that event, to go into the question with a view of submitting to her Majesty their opinion and advice. With a judgment of such significance in his hand, the petitioner again applied to Sir CHARLES WOOD, praying that the case might be remitted for adjudication to the Privy Council, by authority of the Crown. But Sir CHARLES WooD refused this reasonable request on a ground which, if alleged by a judge in stead of a President of the India Board, would afford a sufficient warrant for his impeachment. Sir CHARLES WOOD'S words were, that, "if the " petitioner succeeded in obtaining justice, it would " induce numbers of other natives to follow his " example, and the India Board would thus be " besieged by petitioners for redress." A deputa tion, however, consisting of several members of Parliament, were afterwards prevailed on by the petitioner to wait on Sir CHARLES WOOD, when, yielding to parliamentary influence what he had refused to reason and justice, he pro mised to look over the papers, which it would thus appear he had not even been at the trouble of reading previously. Such is the mode in which Sir CHARLES Wool) thinks proper to govern India. As the grant ing justice to one would induce appeals for justice from others, he gives a permanent charter to wrong by closing the doors which the Constitution has appointed should re main open to all for redress of grievances. Having thus practically shown to the people of India that complaints are useless, he peri odically urges the absence of complaints as a proof of their happiness and contentment under the paternal sway of his Government. Such presidents of the India Board as Sir CHARLES WooD, carelessly unjust and indo lently tyrannical, are really the cause of all that misgovernment in India of which we now hear so much. Ignorant of its affairs, and incompetent to the discharge of the duties of his important office, the Minister is content to draw his salary, allowing Sir JAMES Hoot) and his brother directors to govern India as they please. He thus entirely suspends the operation of that constitutional check which Mr. Pin long since saw was so necessary, and which his sagacity provided. That great Minister selected as President of the India Board, not the least efficient of his followers, but the shrewdest and most self-relying of them all, the great DuNnas. The choice of the present Administration seems to have fallen on Sir CHARLES WooD for no other reason than his proved unfitness for those other Cabinet officofficeswhich are subject to the habitual criticism and control of Parliament. Oxford Bill has a parliamentary rather than a Government parentage), Ministers forced on the Bribery Bill before the Lords on the 3rd of August. It was pretended that the urgency of the measure brought it within the action of the exceptions provided for in the resolution of the 2nd of May. Several noble lords re sisted the proposal of the Duke of NEWCASTLE for practically rescinding that resolution. Lord DERBY, sup _ported by the Marquis of CLARRI CARDE and Lord REDESDALE, enforced the ne cessity of the Upper House having due time for legislation. The Bribery Bill did not re late to the war, or to any affairs of immediate " exigency," and, as no general election was impending, it could not make any practical difference to the country at large whether the measure was made law in the present or suc ceeding session. Besides, the Peers should adhere to the wise resolution of enforcing their claims for adequate time being given to them for legislation But Ministers desired to have some appearance of having canied through an important measure, and their ad herents mustered in sufficient force to give them a small majority Nor would that result have been attained but for the Bribery Bill being limited in operation to a period of two years, and its character thus being more expe • rimental than final. The fact, also, that five boroughs would have remained with their writs suspended probably influenced several noble lords in taking the measure into consider ation even at this late period of the session. We are glad, however, that attention has again been directed to the necessity for ad hering to the resolution of the House of Peers to enforce its just claims to an active share in legislation. Public time is not wasted in the TJpper House by its members making speeches for the newspapers. A leading and influen tial Ministerial journal was very severe in its number of Wednesday on members of the House of Commons who " cul tivate low arts of popularity," and who, " while addressing the House, have their " thoughts far away in taprooms, porten " tously lighted by gas, where over tables " slopped by beer their remarks and cavilling " will be read." If such a description can be accepted as faithful, it would appear that reducing the franchise still further can cud only in lowering the character of the Legis lature. But it cannot be pretended that the members of the House of Lords have wasted the public time in the fashion thus described. The tone of their proceedings is always more business-like. The fact that so much time is uselessly lost in the Lower House is the very reason why an ample period should be given to the House of Lords to discharge its duties of legislation. In case the resolution of :the 2nd of May should be departed from, it must then become a grave question whether the sugges tion of the Earl of DERBY should not be acted upon, viz., of adjourning over the considers tion of late bills from the House of Commons to the opening of the ensuing session. There may be objections to such a plan, but they yield in seriousness to those against the sys tem followed in recent years of using the House of Peers as a mere registration court for the opinions of the Commons. We are satisfied that the Peers will never acquiesce in a system that is at once offensive and uncon stitutional, and we trust that they will con tinue to insist upon strict adherence to the resolution of 2nd of May, by which provision is effectually made for securing to them their just share in the legislation of the country. THE RIGHTS OF THE HOUSE OF LORDS. THE debate, on Thursday, in the House of Peers, on the question of entertaining the con sideration of the Bribery Bill, was one of the most important discussions during the present session. Some time since the Peers passed a resolution declaring that after the 20th of July they would not legislate on bills sent up to them from the House of Commons. The object of that resolution was to secure effec tually their Lordships' right of examining, and correcting (if need be), the measures passed by the Lower House, and to terminate the system that had grown up, of loading the table of the House of Lords with bills at the end of the session. Finding, however, that the Coalition could not point to any legislative measures (for the THE PRESS. 723 CENSUS RESULTS. THE census of 1851, whatever its real or supposed in accuracies as regards some controverted questions. is a remarkable work, and perhaps the greate popular interest attaches to that part of it which sets forth the " ages, civil condition, and occupations " of the people. This information is contained in a pre liminary or general report, of about 120 folio pages, wherein the results of the various local inquiries are summed up with much fulness and accuracy of detail. From the document here referred to it will be our duty to select such particulars as 8 may best seem to illustrate the social and, thus indirectly, the political state of the country. We shall follow in general the arrangement chosen by the commissioners, a .4 pre senting the greatest facilities for reference to, and comparison with, the original from which we abridge. 1. AGES or TILE POPULATION.—It seems that, not withstanding the delicacy of the inquiry, no real ob jection is felt to supply the statistics required. In 1801 and 1811 the ages of individuals were not asked for; in 1821 the answer was left optional, and might be given or refused at pleasure, yet only one-ninth of the people declined to give in a statement, and this deficiency was owing to omission on the part of the querists rather than to reluctance on that of the questioned. In 18:11 the number of males of 20 years and upwards was demanded ; in 1841 and 1851 a full return was required, and the demand in each case was readily complied with. In 1821 and '3l it was ascertained that the number of males under and above 20 years was nearly equal ; or, in other words, that the number donates above the age of 20 equalled one-fourth of the entire people. These proportions are now altered ; for, omitting the army, navy, and merchant seamen em ployed abroad, we have in 1851— Males above 20 years " under 20 yams 4,779,318 Excess The division of age adopted in the report is fivefold, the extreme limit, being taken at 100 years, and that period divided into epochs of 20 years each. Of centenarians, or persons whose ages exceed a century, we have 319-208 women, and 111 men. The greatest longevity recorded in the census extends to 119 years ; but the evidence in such cases is rarely conclusive, from the ignorance of the parties and the want of early statistical record. There is no doubt, however, that of those set down as centenarians many have really reached the ages set down in the returns. But the proportion of numbers living at the various epochs into which life is divided will he most clearly set forth as follows :—Assume 100,000 children to be born at the same time, of these we shall have, according to the present estimate of mortality, Born Living at 20 years, I Dead before the age of 20, 66,081. 33,939. Living at 40 years, I Dead before the age of 40, 63,824. 46,176. Living at 60 years, I Dead before the age of 60, 37,998. 62,002. Living at 80 years, I Dead before the age of 80, 9,382. 90,018. Living at 100 years, I Dead before the age of 100, probably, 1 or 2. 00,908 or 09,909. Or, putting these results in a more popular form, we shall have at 20 years nearly two•thirds of the whole number living • at 40, rather more than one half; at 60, consider ably less than two-fifths; at HO, something between one-eleventh and one-tenth of the whole. " The probable lifetime of a male at birth in Eng " land is nearly 45 years ; for, as by that time a "given number born is reduced by one-half, the "chances of their attaining and not attaining that " age are equal." The mean age of the male population of Great Britain in 1851 is found to be 25.87 years, showing a slight but perceptible increase. In 1821 it was 25.13 years, and 25.48 years in 1841. The comparative numbers of the sexes stand thus:— Males between 20 and 40 in Great Britain 3,1413,490 Females, same ages Excess 133,654 This excess increases in later life: it seems that a larger number of boys is born than of girls, but that the greater length of average female life reverses the proportions. In London alone, to take no other in stance, the number of women who have passed the age of 80 is nearly double (197-100) that of men similarly circumstanced. Passing to what the commissioners have entitled the " civil or conjugal condition of the people," we have these general conclusions :—The proportion of the married to the unmarried at all ages (children included) is in Great Britain 33 to 100 among men, 32 to 1(X) among women. Excluding all below 20 years of age, we have 62 per cent. of the male population married, 57 per cent. of the female ; that is to say, about four-sixths of tEe men, and four sevenths of the women. The mean age of marriage is, in England and Wales, 25.8 years for males, 24.6 for females. Of all who marry, more than one-half (54 per cent.) are between the ages of 20 and 25 years. It may be estimated from the tabular returns that, of the population exceeding the age of 20 years, about 1 man in every 10, and 1 woman in every S, will never marry. The births in 1851 were 615,865; the deaths 395,174 ; leaving an excess of 220,691 births ; and this number differs little from the average on a series of years. Here, then, we have the balance