The Press. — London, England, 1857-12-19 00:00:00

1218 gone like other trials, and the only moral to be drawn front it is to think in future more charitably of those who are habitually ex posed to similar ones, and more humbly of ourselves. But different will be the case if we have none but ourselves to thank for the result. The question, then, that Parliament when it reassembles will have to consider and deride on is not whether the circumstances in which the rebellion in India has placed us have justified these extreme and lamentable courses, but whether it was or was not the fault of the Government that we were placed in such circumstances at all. That it was the fault of the Government we hold to be indis putable, and we would beg to recall to the minds of our readers a few of the facts upon which this conviction rests. We all know that the Bengal army, several regiments of the Bombay army, and most of the contingents of native States were largely composed of men from Oude ; and we also know that the mass of the Bengal army, these regiments of the Bombay army, and the contingents of native States in which such men have been enlisted, have all rebelled. The only instance of a native regiment on the Bombay side revolting where the men were Mahrattas was in the case where they came from a lately annexed Mahratta State. We also know that the chief seat of the rebellion is Oude. We further are aware that Sattara, Jhansi, and Nagpore, where the rebellion has similarly put forth most prominent symptoms, are other lately-annexed native States. And in each minor case, as about Poonah and the Southern Mahratta country, where such feelings have been displayed, the centres of the intrigues have been the families and retainers of the princes and jaghiredars whom we have dispossessed. In Madras, where there have been no such influences, no rebellion has occurred. It is very true that the native princes whom we have left undisturbed have shown some a zealous and some a doubtful adherence to us; but this only proves the more clearly our position that the native princes and chiefs are not by nature hostile to us, and are very ready to fulfil their treaty obli gations towards us when we on our parts have not broken faith with them. It is those only whom we have deposed, or who have learnt through their agents, who have a golden key to all the Council records, that we have deter mined to depose them, that have taken advantage of the sepoys' feeling towards us to rebel against our rule. Among the intended victims of our policy, it is well known that the principal was the heir apparent of the King of DELHI, and among the actual sufferers the King of GUDE. That the Government itself is as fully aware as we are of the fact of the discontent we have thus occasioned, there cannot be a better proof than the allegation of Lord GRANVILLE on the subject of the Anglo• Indian press. The chief crime he could bring against it was that it had mentioned that it was in contemplation to annexßaroda. and the Rajpoot States, and that nothing was more likely to drive all the native princes of India into rebellion than the bare suggestion of the Government's contemplating such an act. If the idea that annexation was merely contemplated was likely to be productive of such consequences as these, what must have been the effect of actual annexation in the case of so many native States? We are at a loss to understand how the Ministerial organ in the Lords could get up and aver that no disaffection had been created by annexation, while telling us on another question that the consequences of even a casual mention of impending annexation in a newspaper was so dangerous to us, as to form a perfect justifica tion for gagging the Anglo-Indian press. But, whatever opinions Ministers and their organs, either in the House of Lords or else where, may have thought fit to give utterance to on the subject, the letter of " Civilian," in the Times of Tuesday last, is quite sufficient to set the ttnint at rest. It is dated Allahabad, the Ist of November ; and no matter what the value of its views in other respects, they are clearly trut-:woi thy in this. In this letter the writer distinctly says, what we have all along asserted, that the rebellion in Oudo has originalied, not so much in the personal de privation of the King, us in the total destrue. THE PRESS, DECEMBER 19, 1857. tion of that native system of civil polity of which the King was the representative and the head. He corroborates our statement that the deposition of the Monarch was accompanied by the total abrogation of all pre-existing pro prietary rights. He tells us that this has turned the whole population of Oude against us, and of the population of Oude the sepoys of the Bengal army formed an integral and most important part. Nay, more, he goes on to arraign, precisely as we have ever done, the proceedings of the Company in respect to landed property almost everywhere through out recently-annexed States. He says : " Whatever popular opposition there is in our " own older districts, besides the mere free " booting of the plundering tribes, may be " traced almost exclusively to one great source " of hostility which has raised many people " against us. I mean the very general trans " fel of landed rights which has taken place " under our system." He informs us that there "has been so general a transfer of " landed rights as has, perhaps, never been " known in any age or in any country." He tells us that, as our Civil functionaries have been swept away by the rebellion, the old proprie tors have come forth and resumed their estates, the new possessors disappearing with the collectors on whose decrees their titles rested. He adds that, " Surely we must take " warning. Surely we shall not thus rudely " destroy the remaining tenures, and render " hostile the remaining provinces. If the land " of the Punjaub had been transferred, as that " of the north-western provinces, it is quite " certain that we should not be here ; that we " should hold nothing of India beyond the " guns of our ships; we should have neither " taken Delhi nor saved Allahabad. The " Sikhs would have been against us to a man, " and General HAVELOCK would probably have " now been defending Calcutta." Such are the statements contained in this letter ; and we would ask whether it would be possible to offer clearer proof of the accuracy of the view taken of the crisis by Mr. DISRAELI in his speech in the House of Com mons in July last? He over and over again explained that this might on the surface appear to be a religious question, but that at the bottom it was a territorial and agrarian one, and that the Bengal army had revolted because it was mainly composed of Oude men, and that they were thus the exponents, not so much of the military as of the national dis content. Indeed, every one who really knows the structure of Indian society and the feel ings which predominate in it must have per ceive 1 this from the first. The Ministers alone were blind to the truth, because it formed the strongest possible condem nation of their acts. They did not choose to see that their proceedings had produced a great revolt in India, though they might have known that in any other country a similar course would have brought about a not very dissimilar result. Here, then, is the true source of the evil, and here must be applied the remedy, if we would look for any perma nent effect. It is easy to talk of Mahome den turbulence, and the treachery of the Hin doos ; but these are not the causes of the mis• chief, but simply its effects. The origin of our disasters has not been in the nature of the people we have had to deal with, but in the fact of the policy pursued towards them being contrary to every principle either of common justice, or of common sense. THE LORDS AND THE LIBERALS. TILE vague ideas entertained in opposite quarters about the coining Reform Bill are visible in the variety of opinions propounded on its expected operation. It has been as sumed by one of our weekly contemporaries that the present county franchise is " doomed," and it seems to be taken for granted by some that Lord PALMERSTON'S Ministry will actually propose to " Tower-Hamletise the consti " tuencies." In other quarters we see the phrase used " to regulate the laws relating to the " franchise," as if an extension of the suffrage was to be the sole aim of the proposed measure. Conjectural schemes are beyond our notice, for we agree with BURKE " that " it is a bad habit in politics to moot cases," yet there is one constitutional consideration of the highest impurtanee Which must not be overlooked, and whleh ought to obtain the especial regard of the Conservatives of Eng land. We allude to the probable influence of any new Reform Bill Upon the position of the Rouse of Lords. It will be recollected that in his fatuous speeches against Reform, Mr. CANNING used always to argue on the supposition that a reformed Parliament would never work in harmony with an hereditary House of Peers. The skilful orator, in the first place, assumed that an extremely democratic measure of Re form would have been enacted, and he used then to ask could any one suppose that a House of Lords would be able to coexist with a Radical House of Commons? The difficulty started by Mr. CANNING was to a considerable extent met by the arrangements and compromises at the period of the Reform Bill. Although the boroughs were swept away, the county fran chise was put on such a basis that a powerful representation of the Conservative connection was guaranteed, and a strong bond of union made between the Peers and the Commons. Mr. HALLAM, in his " Constitutional History," alludes to classes "influenced by a predilec " tion for the territorial aristocracy;" and how ever politicians of opposite sides may differ as to the degree of political influence which should be given to the Lords, np sincere sup porter of the Constitution would wish to see their authority practically nullified. If, there fore, " the laws regulating the franchise" were drawn up with an intention, expressed or implied, of " Tower-Hamletising " the counties, the emergency anticipated by Mr. CANNING would actually occur. England would be laid out into one overgrown metropolitan borough. The sentiments of various classes, the local feelings of ancient communities, the generous pride of Yorkshire, Kent, and Devonshire, the industrial energies of Lancashire, and all the characteristic distinctions associated with the time-honoured name " Old England," would be swamped in a whelming deluge effacing all landmarks, and leaving our society one vulgar dead level, without noble institutions to Com memorate the triumphs of the past, or guarantee our privileges for posterity. We can prove at once that we indicate no fanciful difficulty when we remind our readers that the subversion of the present county fran chise might pave the way for vast changes not yet contemplated by the community at large. In the last number of the Saturday Review there is an article called " The Lords and India," in much of which we concur. We agree with the opinion expressed as to the strong nationality of feelings shown by the House of Lords at every great English crisis ; but then follows this passage—" The tendency " of political progress may be towards the " ultimate replacement of an hereditary peer " age by something more in the nature of a " Senate. It is difficult, indeed, even for the " greatest enemies of revolutions to see how, " amidst the overtopping power of wealth and " intellect, the power of mere birth can per " manently hold its ground, and continue to " form a sufficient conservative element in " the State." Here we have a great Parlia mentary revolution anticipated, while the ne cessity for " a sufficient conservative element "in the State" is admitted. The "replace " ment of an hereditary peerage " by a " Senate" sounds ominously; the "overtopping " power of wealth and intellect" is pointed out, and the insecurity of an institution de pendent on " mere birth " is mentioned in no unfriendly spirit. It is true that there is something of loose exaggeration in that statement of the case. The House of Lords does not depend on " mere birth ;" it has vast estates, wealth, and the hallowing power of time to give force to its position and consecrate its character. It has amongst its leaders the trained states men of the two great parties, and it is also constantly recruited from the classes most distinguished by " wealth and intellect." The House of Lords has still great social influence in England ; its members enjoy ancestral dignity, and their families have the prestige of fashion ; their influence in their respective