The Press. — London, England, 1858-04-10 00:00:00

. . 41'.", • ei • „. t . l . X ... e . 11 ti .3 1, q ......... ....... ...... "eV dr . . _ ____...................„ b ~.._!1 . ( . eritls, No. 258.—V0L. VI. C4t Vrtss. LONDON,' SATURDAY, APRIL 10, 1858: "A RESPONSIBLE MINISTER FOR INDIA." Ma. BRIGHT, and those who think with him, represented by one London journal, boldly declare that, though Liberals, they prefer Lord PALMERSTON'S India Bill to that of the present Government; and mainly for this reason, that "it sweeps away the present system," and gives us " a Secretary of State, " accepting and exercising a complete respon " sibility, under the control of the Imperial " Parliament." They object to the present Bill mainly because " it continues the present system," with a few insignificant alterations. We have long ceased to feel surprise at any Liberal fancies or caprices, and, least of all, at Liberal flirtations with Absolutism ; but certainly such a notion of the best way of go verning India, coming from a Liberal, is enough to take away one's breath. England has many magnificent colonies, some of them containing one, two, or three millions of people. There were continual complaints of misgovernment in former times ; but latterly we have hit upon the expedient of allowing each colony to govern itself. Our Secretary of State, therefore, becomes a mere administrator, appointing a few officers, car rying on correspondence, and keeping up a show of Government. A common language, family connections, and large trading concerns, are the real ties which keep England and Aus tralia together. But now we come to a totally different case. Instead of 180,000 people, or 1 300,000, who enjoy representative govern ment and make their own laws, we have to deal with 180,000,000, who cannot govern themselves, and who have, for a long series of years, been governed by a small Council of " Directors," meeting in Leadenhall-atreet, and overlooked by an officer of the Crown, sitting in Westminster.. This separate action is ab surd and inconvenient, and various plans have been proposed for uniting these two bodies together. Differences of opinion exist as to the number of Directors or Councillors that it would be best to retain, and as to the mode of their appointment. But suddenly there breaks in a voice from the most ultra-Liberal quarter, which exclaims, " No Directors—no " divided responsibility. Lct us have one " great officer—a President, or Secretary of " State for India—exercising a complete re• " sponsibility, under the control of the Impe " rial Parliament" As we have said, if anything from a Liberal could surprise us, we should have been as- LONDON, SATURDAY, APRIL 10, 1858. tonished hero. For what is the proposal, but to place 180,000,000 of people under the al most absolute dominion of one man 1 The phrase " responsibility " sounds well ; but it implies " power." A man is responsible for his exercise of power. Now, is it wise, is it English, to say to one man, " Take you those 180,000,000 of men, and govern them ; but mind, if you do any wrong, Parliament will look after you"? Practically, too, would not this be an enormous blunder? Properly to conduct the affairs of a great empire, you require steadiness of hand. Heretofore, for a century past, the Government of India has not been influenced by the party politics of England. The Board of Directors contained boat Whigs and Tories ; and a change of Ministry made little difference in the course of government. But now it is proposed, for the first time, to make , the Government of India fluctuating and moveable. A Lord ELLENBOROINiIi may be the autocrat in 1858, a Lord CLANRICARDE in 1859 ; and if the ad vent of the " great Liberal party " should soon occur, we might have Mr. ROEBUCK or Mr. COBDEN for the sole ruler of India in 1860! Is a country 12,000 miles off likely to be go verned well, if its Governor and its system of government are liable to be changed with every change of the English Cabinet ? The first and predominant feeling, with every prudent and sensible man, in touching this Indian question, is a feeling of awe and . of fear. So momentous are the interests at stake, that nothing can be imagined more unreasonable or blameable than rash or hasty legislation. And this feeling, rightly carried out, would lead to great caution, and to a determination to introduce change gradually. Such a feeling, no doubt, prompted tke idea which has been talked of in some quarters, of merely uniting the Board of Directors with the Board of Control—bringing both together in one large room at Whitehall, instead of keeping them apart, and so carrying on the farce of " a double Government.') This scheme of a union or fusion always appeared to us to have much of common sense about it; and one thing which recommends the present Bill to our minds is, that it is in some respects a similar proposal. One of the most hostile criticisms on the measure runs thus : " It does not get rid of the East India Com pany, inasmuch as the proprietors of India Stock are still to be ' a power' in Indian affairs. It does not get rid of the element of Old Indians' from whom all real reformers despair of receiving any useful contribution in aid of India Reform; It does not get rid of the eighteen gentlemen in Leadenhall-street, whose hopeless incompatency is now patent to all the world. It does not abolish that juggle by which the Minister for India in the House of Commons had a divided responsibility with the Court of Directors ; in short, it is just that kind of a measure which, if accepted and passed, affords a positive proof that no change r • • • _ STAMPED ....SIXPENCE. UNSTAMPED..FIVEPENCE. was really desired, and that as little as pe s sible has been made." Now, as wo dread the idea of " making a clean sweep," and as we do not regard the Board of Directors as a mere nuisance, it is to us a good feature of the present measure that it leaves much of the existing system undis turbed. We have wondered to ourselves, re peatedly, whence this sudden preference for sole sovereignty, rather than a representative council, could have been derived. And the only theory we can find to account for this strange fact is this : There are eminent officials (one in particu. lar), who have been concerned hitherto in the government of India. These gentlemen, or this gentleman, may have acquired a dislike for the authority of a Board, and may have fancied that they, or he, could govern India better if left alone, with no one but a nominal bead, a grandee, to control them. The prece dent of Mr. ROWLAND HILL, who rules all things at the Post-office, with merely a Duke or an Earl to pay him occasional visits, may have occurred to him, and he may have as pired to the enormous power of, practically, ruling an empire, almost unseen, in the name of Lord Aor the Earl of B. It seems to us , that some secret mover or inspiring genius of I this sort must be at work, promoting the cry, "No Council,—let us have one responsible Minister." For this desired " responsibility to Parlia. ment" is, in fact, as a Member of Parliament recently said, " responsibility to .. 1 4 2 ,blind idiot." Parliament may be able to, exersise some power and influence over a Hednie"fiesre tary or a Chancellor of the EielfeiNZ, • '1 . • much as probably a majority. of the ' ~ members know something above hoine:geverpnient , or, finance and taxes. But out of the .664;iM54 hers of Parliament, are there so malitsfroirrfiii( who have any knowledge of India? - rlcqitlittit a notorious fact that a debate "on: tin .. ; East Indian charter, or on an East IndiiiOktid,get, is sure to empty the House of Commons ; simply. because forty-nine out of every fifty of the members feel the subject to be one which. they do not understand ? To create a sole Secretary . of State for India, and to lay him under no other control than this boasted " responsibi lity to In—" --4. 1 take • India, and do wrong, nothing they know you righ' The w' and the I to the 801 ture: Bi of the strau; free • people, if a _ Council, like the Board of Directors, emu b• ?arliament," is to say—" There,' take nd govern it as yo j k •I . if you g, six hundreds 4 '... .. know cf_ abort the matm .. - 1_,...."'• • clabat ow nothing abiL , ° • . s et 4.0 'map it !" axis I.A ~ am oz `, • , Q r 1 t i i t .' ?hole problem, .4 , 1 . T 1 . . e . :, AI" • . • , most difficult ...ii ir t4 _oc 1 • e d. caution of any !. . - ..1 4 . t !' °: "."` ilisk. , 3ut certainly it will be ~. ied as one traugest decisions ever adopted by a _. .. NM