The Press. — London, England, 1858-03-13 00:00:00

244 spection before endorsing the vindictive pro posals of Oppositionists just hurled from office by the will of the Commons itself. There are many important considerations which, it may be hoped, will not be forgotten at the present time. First amongst these is the point that the House has full time for deliberation. At this crisis there is not the least necessity for any precipitate action on the part of the House of Commons. It is not the end of a session, nor is it an expiring Parliament, nor is there any urgent domestic question that must be immediately settled. The present time, the relations of the House of Commons, and the expectations of the country are utterly unlike the eventful years of 1832 or 1846, or the crisis of the Crimean war. In these columns we pointed out to our readers, in the last autumn, that with respect to domestic politics the even tualities resembled the memorable year 1834, when Parliament witnessed the spectacle of the Grey majority rapidly breaking up. We told our readers that the alleged fact of " a " great Palmerston majority" could not be relied upon, and we well knew that" the jobbery of Liberalism " was with rapid success intro ducing the dry rot into Palmerstonianism. Like unsound timber, the late Ministerial sys tem has crumbled on the first Parliamentary pressure. It is most unlikely, and it certainly would be most unwise, that the House of Commons should threaten the Cabinet with hostility when it has come into offiee upon the mature opinion of the Crown, called for by the voluntary act of the House of Commons itself. Lord DERBY distinctly stated in his magnificent speech that on the Saturday when her Majesty had sent to his Lordship—" I entreated her Majesty to " take till the following day to consider " whether she would think it expedient to call me " to her councils . . . and I felt bound to add " that if ups full consideration any other person " would be better qualified " for the task, " that her Majesty should not for a single " moment consider my position, interest, or " feelings, but take the course which upon re " Action she might deem most advantageous "to the country." The House of Com mons knows by experience that the august personage who now wields the sceptre of British sovereignty is completely and mi nutely accomplished in the principles and routine of Parliamentary Government. For twenty years Queen VICTORIA has ruled amidst the acclaim of a free people, devoted to her Crown, and loyal to her person. Her Majes ty's sound sense has been invigorated by ex perience, and in many an important crisis the Queen has acted with consummate prudence. The resolution of the Queen at such a period as the present is, therefore, not without deep significance, when it is remembered that the late Cabinet fell and Lord DERBY'S Ministry oame into office on a question of foreign policy, where the national honour was deeply concerned. The House of Commons knows well that in relation to foreign affairs there is much sense in the political maxim " that the Crown is " always in office." When a Ministerial crisis has occurred on a question of foreign affairs, and when that crisis has been brought about by the House itself, it will look with interest and profound attention to the conduct of the Sovereign. To Lord DERBY'S request that her Majesty would take time for full deliberation, we know what was the reply. "On the fol " lowing morning I had the honour of recetv " ing a note from her Majesty informing me " that further reflection had fully confirmed her "in wishing me to accept office." Now we do not desire to place any strained interpretation on the acts of the Sovereign ; hut it deserves to be observed that her Majesty did take the time for "full reflection," that her Majesty in writing communicated her gracious wishes to Lord DERBY, and it appears from the tenor of the statement from Lord DERRY that her Majesty's first impressions were " fully con firmed ' after mature deliberation. These cir cumstances in relation to the just claim of the Cabinet to a fair trial cannot be over looked by a prudent and patriotic House of Commons. Under such circumstances it is not likely that the House of Commons will be so untrue to its own dignity as to give an appearance of Tli E PRESS, MARCH 13, 1858. instability by taking up the cause of a fallen and fickle Minister like Lord PALMERSTON. There is no urgent question on which the House of Commons need be compelled to force on a crisis, resulting in an appeal to the country. By universal consent the subject of " Reform" is adjourned to next year, and there is ample room for active legislation in the current session, without reference to party feelings. The House of Commons, before another political crisis, might wish to see par ties shaped more clearly. The Liberal party will, probably, require that its fortunes should be removed from the fatal grasp of Lord PAL MERSTON, and that its management should he committed to its natural leaders; for the joint action of two such men as Lord PALMERSTON and Lord J. RUSSELL would now present several of the most repulsive aspects of a " Coalition." Before the House of Commons could resolve on any hostile proceedings to wards Lord DERBY'S Cabinet, it might require that the internal arrangements of the Liberal party should be placed on an entirely new basis, a process which will take some time to accomplish from the variety of pretensions of various persons, who have been treated with notorious injustice under the rule of " the families." Such considerations, with many others, ought to make the House of Commons reluc tant to take any imprudent or hasty course at the present time. It can, without the least compromise of its dignity, afford to give "the constitutional confidence" asked for by Mr. DISRAELI at the County-hall at Aylesbury. The House will not be so unwise as to taunt the present Cabinet with holding office " on suf ferance." Such a course would only bring on a premature dissolution of Parliament; and in any appeal to the country it would be most de sirable that there should be ample time given for the people to weigh all the eventualities. Mr. DISRAELI rightly explained on Monday that a Ministry sits on sufferance only after the House of Commons has rejected one of its measures. In one sense every Cabinet is on the sufferance of the House of Commons, and the vigour with which the House decisively pronounced against Lord PALMERSTON is ample vindication of its collective power and its con stitutional prerogatives, which had lost some of their rightful dignity under the fancied dictatorship of Lord PALMERSTON, and his tail of professional politicians who had lived upon " the jobbery of Liberalism." CHRISTIANITY IN INDIA. AN earnest man who is in the habit of speak ing " strongly" is always in danger, when he appears on the platform, of being misunder stood by some one reporter, who is perhaps hardly intelligent on the matter under discus sion. Thus we were startled the other day by being told in a weekly contemporary that Lord SNArrEssuav had declared the duty of the Indian Government with reference to religious questions to be " simple neutrality,' and that all that the friends of missions asked it to do, was, " merely to do nothing." We sought for the speech in question, and found that the passage thus briefly referred to had been given thus : I consider it a very great misfortune that the term "neutrality " should have been used, as it has been, in re lation to this subject. Persons have said that the Govern- ment should be called upon to depart from its system of neutrality. Now, I know, and you know, perfectly well what is intended ; but our opponents have taken up the word "neutrality," and said, " If the Government is to depart from its neutrality, it must, of course, enter upon the reverse of that, namely, a course of action, and that course of action cannot be otherwise than aggressive as regards the natives of India." That has never been our intention at any time. Avoid, then, I say, the use of the word " neutrality." If I am asked, " What shall we call upon the Government to do?" I reply, call upon the Go vernment to do nothing at all. Let your prayer to the Government be, "Do nothing at all; keep out of the mess; your strength is in standing still." Say to the Go vernment, my friends, " We want you to do nothing; we want you not to interfere with the arrangement of the estates connected with those vile temples, we want you not to interfere with the collection of religious offerings at the confluence of the Jumna with the Ganges, and at other places ; we want you not to interfere so es to appear to give your sanction, by means of your officers, to the rights of heathenism ; in short, we want you not to do anything which will throw impedimenta in the way of Christianity. Let the liindoo and Mohammedan priests endeavour to prevent Beim froint becoming Christian converts it they please; only let them he a lair field, tau competition, for all, and we feel as sure d th at, in that case, Christianity will carry it, out and out, without th e s li g h test countenance, or support, or assistance, from the Govern ment." And then, when we come to that pm question of caste, which has been so ably, so powerfully, , and so unanswerably treated by Sir John Lawrene again we ask the Government to do nothing what ever; to ignore caste altogether, and to act as if it did not. exist. Let them say to the natives, "You may observe the customs of cute, you may attach the utmost sanctity to cute, but you must keep the thing to yourselves ' • we cannot recognise cute; we do not w i s h to interfere with your caste, but if you choose to come and serve ns, you must serve us on our own conditions." Avoid then, my friends, the use of the phrase, " What is the Government to do ?' Maintain wherever you go that the Government should do nothing. Now, thus explained, the words are not very objectionable, but still we are sorry that they were used. Somewhat similar language fell from Lord STANLEY at Lynn. On the occasion of his re-election the Noble Lord said : You hive heard a good deal of the discouragement given to the profession of Christianity in India, of the patron age of native religions, and of the necessity of employ. ing active means for spreading our own form of belief in that country. Now, I venture to say that nine -tenths of the stories we are told respecting what is called the discouragement of Christianity by the Government of the Company are absolutely untrue, and that the other one-'enth is grossly exaggerated. No doubt, if any obstacle has been thrown in the way of any person conscientiously becoming a convert to the Christian re ligion, it is a violation on our part of principle and of duty; and if ad the demand was that no such obstacle should be interposed, I, for one, would not be inclined to offer any opposition; but when it is asked that the Government of India should violate the rule of neutrality in religious matters, and should directly favour and encourage conversions to Christianity, I us that is a false and dangerous principle, which may carry you further than you intend, and the only legitimate end of which will be in persecution. I do not say that if such an attempt were made it would fail entirely. On the contrary, I think to a certain extent it would succeed. The power of Government is very great in Eastern countries. There are very large numbers of persons who think they have something to hope or some thing to fear from the executive power; and I do not doubt that if it were held out to the natives of India that the Government favoured those who adopted the European religion, a large number of converts of one sort or another would be the result, but they would be exactly the class of men who have neither characters to lose nor consciences to restrain them. They would bring discredit upon the European belief, and the only effect of their adhesion would be to alienate the more respectable classes among the natives. I am satisfied, therefore, that the course which has been hitherto followed, of strict religions neutrality, is the only one which is either wise or just. It will be seen that, between the sentiments of Lord SHAFTESBURY and those of Lord STANLEY there is great similarity. It would seem to betoken great temerity in us were we to express a different opinion, and indeed we doubt if there is any real difference between us. We entirely agree with Lord STANLEY S view, that converts made by money or patron age are such converts as can do no credit to any faith. We abjure, then, as decidedly as either of these Noble Lords can do, the idea of using the influence or power of the Indian Government in the work of conversion. But when we have conceded all this, we wish to add to the view two other considerations, without which we fear that the view of the whole question would be incomplete. 1. When men talk of " neutrality," they sometimes forget that there is a neutra lity which is unlawful. The Apostles rule is full and clear,—" Whether ye eat, or " drink, or whatever ye do, do all to the glory of " GOD." Whoever accepts this instruction, and honestly means to carry it out in practice, can not be neutral in a personal sense. His con duct may be tinged with something like neutrality, by just and reasonable views of what is truly expedient. But he himself must have a decided purpose ; and just so far as he himself is sincerely a Christian, will he also be a proselytiser. 2. But to come to the practical part of the question. To bring men to a clear under standing on any doubtful point, there is nothing like an example. Now, three days ago the Times treated us to a splendid euloginm on the two LAWRENCES ; and the admiration felt for the characters of these two great men is universal. No one doubts or dissents ;no one has any reserve. Were, then, the LAW. RENCES neutral in matters of religion? Were they not active, earnest, known and declared proselytisers ? We accept, then, the verdict of the whole public on the excellences of these two men, and we only ask that Ind?, shall be governed " on Lawrence principles.