The Press. — London, England, 1858-02-13 00:00:00

THE PRESS, FEBRUARY 13, 1858. THE WEEK. THE long-expected measure submitted to the House of Commons last night by the Prime Minister involves neither more nor less than a transference of the Indian empire from the Company to the Crown. The India Board at home is to be nominated by the Crown. The Governor-General is to be appointed by the Crown, and the various Indian Councils by the Governor-General. For these extensive changes the concession of a certain amount of patronage to the Council is no compensation, as that body is the creature of the Crown, and may reasonably be expected to exercise its privileges accordingly. As we have never disguised our opinion that very extensive changes were necessary, we no not affect to feel any anxiety for the threatened citadel of Leadenhall-street. But there are other objections to the course adopted by Government only too obvious and forcible. Whatever may be the abstract wisdom of Lord PALME RSTON'S proposals, we hold it to be the height of inexpediency to moot them while the war is raging ; and that, not only because of the effect it will prod uce upon the native mind, but because it is quite impossible that the question can be treated with calmness while the public excitement is still fresh, and while the horrid atrocities inflicted on the English race have filled us with a blind and indiscriminating lust of vengeance, not only on the immediate perpetrators, but on all whom we choose to con sider responsible or accessory. The knowledge of this spirit is just as likely to lead to the total acquittal of the Company as not. When great wrongs are discovered, we should legislate neither during the first glow of public passion, nor during that temporary reaction by which such ebullitions are certain to be succeeded. We must wait till public opinion has regained its equilibrium, till investigations can be prosecuted with comparative candour, and the proportion of blame adjusted with some degree of fairness. We therefore counsel patience and forbearance, and moat sin cerely hope that the Premier will not be permitted to ruin India for the sake of being able to boast, as he has done before, that he will never bring in a bill without carrying it. Yet that some such catastrophe may ensue, unless we devote our entire energies to the subjugation of our revolted provinces, is much to be dreaded Our attention ought not to be divided for a single instant. The picture drawn by Lord ELLENBOROUGH on Thursday night of the present con dition of the war we believe to be substantially true. All the success that the Government organs so assiduously vaunt amounts to this, that the abnormal horrors of a mutiny have subsided into the less startling but more obstinate features of a regular war. Till this be concluded we doubt the wisdom of interfering with the accustomed machinery by which Indian affairs have been managed. The local knowledge and experience of the India-house could not, it is true, save India from gross misgovernment; but it dues not follow that those qualities cannot be turned to temporary account under the pressure of the existing crisis. It is useless to remodel the Government while as yet there is nothing to govern. Before the country is reconquered many considerations may arise materially affecting our policy ; and then we shall repent the adoption of one of those hasty measures which, as a noble author has recently observed, invariably create fresh difficulties, and block up the path to really permanent legislation. Some very irrelevant questions have been asked in the House during the last week. Take that, for instance, asked last night by Mr. STIRLING, of Keir, as to whether the legacy left to CANTILLON, the French officer tried and acquitted of shooting at with intent to assassinate the late Duke of WELLINGTON, had been paid by the Go vernment of NAPOLEON III? Mr. STIRLING prefaced his question by a rambling statement, which, while he professed doubt, conveyed to every one the impression that he knew the facts to be true. Never theless, Lord PALMERSTON'S reply, assuming his statements to be authoritative and correct, crushed Mr. STIRLING. " That portion of the legacy (said Lord PALMERSTON) left by NAPOLEON tO CANTILLON and paid, was paid under the reign of the Bourbons; while that portion refused to his widow was refused by the Government of NAPOLEON III." Now, what business can it be of ours whether NAPOLEON 111. thought proper or not to pay a legacy left by his uncle? This spirit of petty meddling with matters that do not concern us should not be encouraged. We venture to think that such questions as those put by Mr. WAR REN and Mr. STIRLING as unnecessary and impertinent. They do not even require a Ministerial reply ; but under the circumstances we are happy in the one instance to find Lord PALMERSTON so well prepared with what he assured the House was the true version of the facts con nected with the payment of the Cantillon legacy. The Parliamentary week has been distinguished by debates of considerable interest. The vote of thanks to the Army and Navy employed in India was marred on Monday by an attempt of the Go vernment to obtain " surreptitiously " the acquiescence of Parliament in the general policy pursued by Lord CANNING during his adminis tration. The trick was happily detected and exposed in both Houses, and in the Commons, after a lengthened and animated debate, an ad mission was forced from Lord PALMERSTON that the vote of thanks for LORD CANNISG . B assistance to the military operations was not to preclude future discussion upon the policy or the measures of administration he had adopted. The vote at length having been agreed to, LordPAisigatrrom the same evening introduced his Bill to amend the law relating to conspiracies to murder. The preliminary address of the Noble Lord ' deficient both in precision of speech and in clearness of thought, was not calculated to win the sympthies or obtain the undivided consent of the House. An amendment was moved by Mr. KINGLAKE, and the Bill warmly opposed by many habitual supporters of the Government; Mr. ROEBUCK, at a late hour, delivering himself of an harangue, peculiarly conciliatory and persuasive, and as remarkable for its freedom from exaggeration as for its softened language and guarded tone. The debate was resumed on Tuesday, when Sir GEORGE GREY read a despatch from Count WALEWSKI, expressing the regret of the Emperor at the appearance in the Moniteur of addresses which should hurt the susceptibilities of England. Lord JOHN RUSSELL, taking an attitude of decided hostility towards France as towards the Government, spoke strongly against the humi liation they sought to inflict upon England. Mr. DISRAELI, extracting the proposed measure from the false declamation surrounding it, put it clearly before the House that the introduction of the measure was a mark of sympathy which might be paid to France without indignity or humiliation. Lord PALMERSTON briefly replied, and the House divided with an overwhelming majority of 299 to 99 in favour of the introduction of the Bill. On Wednesday the Oaths Bill, to which we have alluded elsewhere, was again introduced ; and on Thursday Earl GREY in the Lords, in a bold speech, presented and supported the petition of the East India Company, pro testing against the abolition of the Company. In the course of the debate Lord ELLENBOROUGH drew a masterly sketch of our position in India, deducing from his facts an argument in favour of the existence of all the elements of a great war in India, a period which he considered " most inopportune " for any considerable legislative changes. Last night Lord PALMERSTON called upon the House to legislate for India, and intro luced his Bill ostensibly for the better government of that country; in reality, to vest its enormous patronage in the Minister of the Crown. The proposal was met by an amendment moved by Mr. T. BARING, whose distinguished social position, great wealth, and extensive commercial relations give peculiar significance to his simple amendment, " that the change is inex " pedient at the present time." Mr. BARING supported his amendment in a speech of singular lucidity and argumentative force. The debate was continued with vigour on both sides, and at length, on the motion of Mr. Regimen, adjourned till Monday. The most interesting part of the discussion on Wednesday respect ing Lord JOHN RUSSELL'S " Oaths Bill " was that which turned on the consideration of the Roman Catholic oath. The subject is of consti tutional importance, and its discussion need not excite religious ani mosity. The case stands simply thus :—When the " Relief Bill " was passed in 1829, certain securities were exacted by the wisdom of Parlia ment, and with the approbation of the Wellington-Peel Cabinet, which had (as is now known by the " Peel Papers") forced the measure upon a reluctant Sovereign. Those securities were (1) that the franchise in Ireland should be removed from the class of " forty-shilling free holdets," and be transferred to more substantial constituencies; (2) that the Lord Lieutenant and the Lord Chancellor of Ireland should always be of the religion of the Established Church ; and (3) that the oath at present exacted should be required from the Roman Catholics entering the House of Commons. We may pass the first and second of these securities ; but the Roman Catholics now wish to alter tha third of them, and seek to make it a grievance. They wero " emancipated" in 1829, and since then a great number of distinguished Roman Catholics have sat in Parliament. Amongst them have been the present Duke of NORFOLK, Lord E. HOWARD, the Hon. C. LANG DALE, MY. PHILIP HOWARD of Corby, Sir MICHAEL O'LonHLEN, Chief Justice MONAHAN, Chief Barons WOULFE and PIOOT, Mr. Justice BALL, and amongst English Roman Catholic Privy Councillors we find the names of Mr. SHELL, Mr. MORE O'FERRALL, and Mr. WYSE. We need not dwell on the fact that Mr. O'CONNELL and forty Roman Catholic Repeal M.P.'s took the oaths and sat in Parliament for the last quarter of a century. Now, without pronouncing any final opinion as to whether the phraseology of the oath could be improved, we may appeal to the numbers of Roman Catholics who have taken it, and made no grievance about it. There is a serious danger lest, if the oath were relaxed, some ulterior purposes might be aimed at. " Repeal " was raised after " Catholic Emancipation " was conceded, and " Cardinal WISEMAN'S aggression " took place after certain anti-Papal enactments of the Elizabethan era had been erased from the Statute-book. The oath is of constitutional significance, and it bears testimony to the feelings and intentions of the Legislature in 1829. With respect to the " Oath of Allegiance," as taken by the Members of the whole House, there can be no doubt about its grave constitutional im portance. It is interwoven with our Parliamentary liberties, and to tamper with it would be of the most serious danger to the Monarchy. The proposal of " Life-Peerages " was objected to by Lord CAMPBELL, amongst many others, as "an organic revolution," but even the pro ject of peers for life to be nominated by the Crown would be a less revolutionary proceeding than an abrogation of the oath of undtvided allegiance to the Sovereign. What amount of " spiritual " influence the Pope may exercise over his co-religionists in Great Britain and Ireland, is another question altogether. The interests of Protestant England require that abundant political security should be given fur our religious independence, and we cannot admit that there is any foreign spiritual influence which can be enforced in our courts of law. If the Roman Catholics had taken a different course since 1829, this form of oath might possibly have been left to the toleration ( 156