The Press. — London, England, 1858-10-09 00:00:00

970 globe, which, when considered with reference to its population and its extent, is, as a dependency, without a parallel in the history of the world. Well, indeed, might he exclaim that, " when he " thought of the amount of responsibility which "devolved upon him and his Council, he was "almost appalled at the weight of tbe task they " had undertaken." These, however, are words of good omen ; for we may rest assured, that when those who have the direction of such great and weighty affairs do not deeply feel the weight of the responsibility which devolves upon them, there is little chance of those affairs being wisely and safely conducted. A display of levity, when seriousness ought to prevail, may raise a laugh amongst the un thinking, but it saddens the hearts of wiser and better men, when they witness a statesman joking about matters which affect the well-being of an em p ire. With a graphic brevity worthy of a first-rate statesman, Lord STANLEY in a single sentence describes the difficulties of the new position created by the abolition of the East India Company. "A " double danger," he says, " has to be guarded " against : we have to protect India from the "fluctuations of Parliamentary politics, and we "have to protect England from the more indirect " and remote, but perhaps not less real, danger " which may arise from the connection of her " executive with an executive which is essentially " despotic." No doubt but that this last-mentioned danger is a real one ; and also that Lord STANLEY correctly describes it as the "more remote" one of the two. So remote, indeed, does it appear at present to be, that there does not seem much like lihood that the present generation of statesmen will have to grapple with it. Before it can become a reality, great changes must have taken place in the character of the British people and in the nature of British institutions. Still, who can venture to affirm that those changes will not take place? And should our mixed Constitution cease to he mixed, should it be converted into a broad and level democracy, and should England then still preserve her Indian empire, an Executive (which is as essential to a democracy as to a monarchy) would doubtless derive very great facilities in carrying out its natural tendency, to make itself absolute, by its close " connection " with an executive which is essentially despotic." Against this danger, therefore, it is well that Lord STANLEY and his Council should be as much as they can be on their guard ; but we fear that what they now can either do, or leave undone, will have but very little influence in those distant days when danger to England may arise from the too close "connection of her executive" with an executive wielding despotiz sway over ten times ten millions of the human race. The other danger which Lord STANLEY men tions is emphatically the danger, which may be truly said to be close at hand, even at the doors. During the very next session, assuredly he will have "to protect India from" the baneful effects too likely to arise from the " fluctuations of Parliamentary politics ;" and if success attend him in affording that protection. it will be one of the noblest triumphs ever attained by a British statesman. His answer, on the Bth of last August, to the deputation from the Missionary Societies, and his speech on which we are now commenting, afford some clue to the way in which he means to fight the battle. From his observations in his speech, it is evident that he has made up his mind to be mainly guided by one sound fundamental principle—the only safeguard, we are sure, N%ainst the fluctuation of Parliamentary politics. That principle is to govern India for the benefit of India. and not for the fancied benefit of Eng land. No policy can be wiser and more true. both for England and for India; for British interests (well understood) can only be promoted by advancing Indian prosperity. For this end, if we have obtained our power as conquerors, we ought not to use it as conquerors. "We must." as Lord STANLF.Y says, " look at the natives of 4 , India as men with whom, and not against whom e we have to work—men with feelings of their ‘' own—men, though politically subject, with a sense of their own rights, and with a respect independence —men o for their own who are apt 4' to be all the more tenacious of their intellec • tuftl independence and national customs be ' cause of the political subjection in which they are held." And afterwards he added :—" I do THE PRESS, OCTOBER 9, 1858. " not hesitate to say that unless we modify and " keep within bounds our feelings of national " superiority—unless we remember carefully, and " even jealously respect, the very prejudices of " those whom we have to rule—above all things, " if we attempt to introduce the force and in " flaenoe of Government into that which ought " to be a matter of private conviction between a " man and his own conscience—if we do this, or " even if we are suspected upon plausible grounds " of attempting to do it, we shall have our efforts " at improvement thrown back in our face as " insults, and shall end in doing more harm than " good." Now, in all this we cordially agree. l i Assuredly it is both our duty and our policy to " keep within bounds our feelings of national " superiority;" nor ought we "to attempt to in " troduce the force and influence of Government " into that which ought to be a matter of private " conviction between a man and his own con " science." In other words, the British Govern ment, in dealing with its Indian subjects, ought not to bring to bear its force and " influence " to control their private "RELIGIOUS convictions," for it is evidently to religious convictions that Lord STANLEY is alluding. We must not, however, conceal from ourselves that it is on our religious dealings with India that " the fluctuations of Parliamentary politics " will first be felt. And if nothing more on the subject had fallen from Lord STANLEY'S lips, we might have been well contented to accept the general principle which he has here enunciated as the one which ought chiefly to guide the conduct of England respecting religion in India. But the enunciation of this principle is broad and vague, and we naturally turn to any other means that are accessible in order to get a clearer insight into Lord STANLEY'S real meaning. We therefore turn to the answer to the deputation from the religious societies, to which we have before adverted, and there we read :—" As regarded the expression of religious "neutrality; the Government construction of " which the deputation expressed themselves "anxious to ascertain, he apprehended that what " was meant was, that no step should be taken, "directly or indirectly, to give to the opinions of " Europe an apparent preference over those which " were found existing in the country. No doubt " it had been thought necessary to lay down that "principle more emphatically, because, whatever " might be said theoretically in reference to the " rejection of Government aid by Christianity, " they knew that, practically, ('hristians had " availed themselves of Government assistance " and interference. It was not enough fir the "Government to establish an equality between "persons of all religions, but care must be taken "that the spirit of the law was administered by " those in authority ; and he would say, on the "part of those in authority, there should be no "exercise of official power and influence which " they might possess in favour of their own " opinions and against those of the native " population." Now, with great respect for Lord STANLEY, we are bound to confess that we do not see how this theory is to be carried out, without a decidedly retrograde step being taken by the Government, and without undoing much that has been already done in furtherance of Chris tianity in India. We write with the utmost deference. We may be ignorant of what we ought to know ; but we certainly have never yet seen or heard of any law now existing in India which enforces in its enactments the carrying out of the principle, thus explained, of " religious neutrality." If there be such a law, it would seem (to take two instances as examples) that the suppression of suttee was an unmistakeable exercise, not merely of " official influence," but of governmental " power against the religious " opinions of the native population" : and that the establishment of a Christian Church, with an Episcopate, was an exercise of the supreme authority of the Government "in favour of " their own opinions." If then, such a law exist, it has been indisputably set at nought by the Government both in letter and in spirit. Are the people of this country, then, prepared to witness the re-establishment of suttee, or the withdrawal of that Christian Church from India ? So long as the one is suppressed, and the other remains there, so long they are standing violations of the great principle of " religious neutrality," as explained by Lord STANLEY. Further on in his answer, his Lordship pro. pounds a principle, which if it be the one by which, for the future, w e are to govern India, it is quite clear that we must abolish that Church. Ile lays down that the " sphere of theological " belief and the sphere of Government are " absolutely and entirely separate." Now, we must not disguise from ourselves the mighty changes which the adoption, by the Legislature, of this principle involves, not merely in India, but in the United Kingdom. Our readers must not disguise from themselves that it is a principle which sweeps away at one blow all the principles on which the Constitution of this country is founded, and that, if we are to act upon it, we must set to work to destroy nearly all that exists, and begin to construct everything anew. Lord STANLEY truly tells us that he could not say that "it was the recognized doctrine of modern " Europe ; " but when he adds that "it is a " doctrine which prevailed in England at the " present day," we are constrained to say that it appears to us, that if, unfortunately, in some few instances it has been allowed to prevail, and :f there be no insignificant party in whose minds it does prevail, yet it is undeniable that all our institutions are based on the directly opposite doctrine —a doctrine which, we believe, "prevails" in the minds of the great majority of the people. Neither can we admit that Lord STANLEY'S doctrine has been, as he says, " carried nut in " our colonial possessions," although it has been, in a few instances, partially applied to some of them ; but when we remember that it is only within a few years that the Government has appointed Colonial Bishops of the Church of England, it surely cannot be correctly affirmed that in those possessions " the doctrine has been " carried out." It is hardly to be supposed that all these con siderations bave not, in a degree, presented themselves to the mind of so able and so reflect ing a statesman as Lord STANLEY ; but never theless we would earnestly, and most respectfully, implore him to weigh them over again. He has declared (most wisely, as it appears to us) that it is his intention to protect India from "the " dangers arising from the fluctuations of Par " liamentary politics." We tell him that by • proclaiming that the principle which he will take as his guide is "that the sphere of theolo " gical belief and the sphere of Government are " absolutely and entirely separate," he will do the exact reverse of that which he intends to do; for he will not only not " protect India from the " fluctuations of Parliamentary politics," but he will at once and irretrievably engulf the affairs of India in the fatal vortex of a Parliamentary and national religious strife. lie will thus de prive this nation of the power of taking disin terested views as to the best mode of dealing with India. He will infuse the heat of religious zeal into every discussion : each proposal will be scanned, not with reference to its bearing on that to which it is professedly applicable, but with re ference to its bearing upon questions deeply in volving the tate of these islands, and measures for the future government of India will be de bated and decided on, not on their own merits, but on considerations as to the effect which they will have upon the future destinies of England. A POLITICAL CONTRAST. IN former times there were but two political --•- • -- - isms—known as Toryism and Whiggign ; but isms have always had a tendency to propagate themselves, and so, in later days, birth has been given to another ism, called Radicalism, or, as it styles itself, Liberalism. These three isms have all some things in common, and yet all some points in which they differ. The difference between the first and the third is wide, but not so very' wide the difference between the first and the second, or the second and the third, taken by themselves. We are no friends to isms of any kind, but when we have to speak of things, we must speak of them by the terms by which they are commonly known. The points of contra3t between these three political systems mark out their distinctive differences, so that the easiest way to understand them in their distinctive cha racters is to contrast them. Conservatism, as its name imports, i s preserra lion with progress. It is a law of nature that nothing can be preserved that does not at the by it eal Lre we ity re, List ple les is we its, )rd hat !rn a the it Few 1 1 f s it iite Is" ple. ,1 in en, of my has of led een on- led !et-