The Press. — London, England, 1858-10-16 00:00:00

THE PRESS, OCTOBER 16,1858. 994 " the solid masonry of our ancient legislation." How much of that " solid masonry " would re main, if our law ofreal property were remodelled upon what the Noble Lord deems the " principles "fit to be adopted in an enlightened age," might be a curious question. We need not, however, discuss it at present, any more than we need be at pains to show that such a codification as that adumbrated by his Lordship's "example of what he would wish to see" would encounter more formidable obstacles in the attempt to pass it through the Legislature than he anticipated when he assured his Liverpool audience that it " would be sanctioned by Parliament, not indeed " without debate, but without serious delay." His second illustration of the question of codi fication, the Noble Lord took from the criminal law, entering largely upon the statistics of crime, and upon penal and reformatory institutions. This is so vast a subject, and was so largely handled by him, that we cannot, as we had inti mated, follow him into it now, but must reserve for a future opportunity our observations re specting it. Meanwhile we must own that we derive no inconsiderable comfort from the con viction that the work of codification—a work in itself unquestionably as desirable as it is difficult, and which, we feel assured, cannot be much longer delayed—will be in the hands, not of social philosophers, but of Conservative States men. power in a country to deal with its subjects with reference only to their secular concerns, is the idlest fancy that can enter into the mind. If, however, it be said that we are here putting a strained interpretation upon the doctrine in question, and that all that Lord STANLEY, and those who agreed with him, meant to convey by it was that it is the duty of Government to put all theological belief upon a perfect equality, and that a Government, as a Government, departs from its true functions when it favours one kind of religious faith more than another, we are still at a loss to conceive how these gentlemen could bring themselves to join the deputation from the Missionary Societies. We know well enough that Sir ISlowrox Pwro, who formed one of the deputation, and the party who think with him, are labouring hard to establish this principle in England ; and, well knowing that not one of the nonconformist sects can have the slightest claim to be placed in the position now occupied by the Church of England, they are labouring, not to raise the position of those sects to the higher level of that Church, but to bring down that Church to their own level. We know that for this object they have long laid down the principle of what they call " religious neutrality," as applicable to this country, and that they will approve of any doctrine, provided only that it contain this their favourite maxim—and they will do this without reflecting that it also contains some other conclu sions which are at once both monstrous and absurd. But if, according to the construction of the British Constitution, the Government is bound to favour the Established Church—and if this be a false principle, against which it is men's duty to contend, and if possible to set aside— because a declared position with regard to matters of theology is not within the sphere of Government—and if the Government have no right to favour one form of Christianity in these islands above another then we ask those gentlemen who clamour for this neutral principle being adopted here with what kind of consistency can they ask for a dif ferent principle to be applied to India ? how can they join a deputation of Missionary Societies to a Minister of State, to ask for favour to be shown to Christianity in India ? If their principle be a sound one, it is equally applicable everywhere; and if the British Go vernment is wrong in favouring the Church of England more than it does the Romanists and the nonconformist sects, it can have no right to favour the religion of JESUS CHRIST in India above the heathen idolatries of the Hindoo superstitions. Lord STANLEY, it must be admitted, is con sistent. No favour to Christianity in India must, in his view, as we understand it from the expression which he has up to this time given of it, be shown by the Government, which is bound to preserve perfect " neutrality " between the dogmas of BnAmAn and the revela tion Of CHRIST. For ourselves, we do not hesitate to avow our conviction that this is a course not only in a religious sense wrong, but in a political sense im possible. Admitting it, however, to be not only possible, but, in a worldly sense, wise, rather than that this nation should adopt it in all its broad significance we should at once declare that if Christian England can only retain dominion over India by adhering to it, it would be far better for her to sever the connection at once than to retain it, at the expense of what appears to us nothing short of dishonouring her Redeemer and her God. Having made this unequivocal declaration of our opinions, we can afford, without our motives being suspected, to argue the question upon the lower ground of policy and worldly wisdom. We care not, then, to hide our opinion that the pro fession of " religious neutrality " on the part of the Government will not succeed in gaining the confidence and loyalty of either the llindoo or Mussulman populations in India ; nay, more, we do not believe that any attempt on the part of the Government to act on the principle of " religious neutrality," in spirit and in truth, will prove more successful for that end. We readily, however, admit that we think that it is clearly demonstrated, by the facts recorded in the Blue-books, that the greased cartridges were the immediate cause of the mutiny. We think that there were many other causes, somewhat less immediate, which more powerfully contributed to bring about that out• break. But in admitting that the greased cart ridges were the direct inciting circumstance, we are well aware that we concede the point that a zeal for their religion, and a dread lest they should be surreptitiously deprived of the privileges which they believed that it conferred upon them, was the incentive to those deeds of horror which seemed to indicate that the very nature of their perpetrators had changed from what it was before. We are also well aware that the not unnatural commentary on these ad missions is :—" Behold the fatal consequence of " even apparently tampering with the religious " belief of the natives ; persevere in the same " course, and you will have India in rebellion " from one end to the other." This may not be at first sight an unnatural, but it is never theless a conclusion based upon very superficial views. We admit that if the Government by its acts creates a general impression on the minds of the natives of Hindostan that it is its intention to do its best to subvert their religion, to make them forcible converts, or to compel them to do, or to entrap them into doing acts, whereby they imagine that they will lose their cherished privileges, a rebellion against British dominion is likely again to burst forth ; but we contend that the creation of such an impression depends upon a great many more considerations than can be comprised either under the profes sion or the practice of "religious neutrality." Now, no doubt the cartridges were the actual lever whereby the rebellion was raised; but the lever would have been utterly powerless had it had no fulcrum to rest on. What then constituted that fulcrum ? We will mention the three ingredients of which it appears to us it was chiefly composed. I. The wars which had been waged with Affghanistan, with Scinde, with Burmah, and with China, together with the wars which Eng land was then waging both with China and Persia, had given rise to an idea in the native mind that the British nation had formed a deep design to make England supreme master of regardless of the rights of the native sovereigns and their subjects. Hence a general feeling of alarm in the native mind. 2. The Governor-General, Lord DALHOUSIE, had openly proclaimed that the policy of annexa tion was, on every plausible ground, henceforth to be the policy of the British Government. Of this policy Sattarah and nude were examples. 3. The most valued and the most sacred rights of the Hindoos were set at nought, by the Govern ment refusing to acknowledge the rights of adop tion—rights deeply affecting the interests of the Hindoos in this world, and, as they believed, their destiny in the next. Hence arose the fiend-like hatred of NANA SAHIB to the ruling race, which eventuated in horrors that appal the heart. By these acts the native mind was prepared to suspect every thing done by their rulers. It was well known that the principle of "religious neu trality " had been put forth by the Government, but the Hindoos looked upon it as a pretence. We do not mean to approve the ill-advised and injudicious efforts of both officials and officers, who in their capacity as such sought to make converts to Christianity. We do not think that it is a wise mode of setting to work to make converts to the doctrines of the Gospel, that it should be preached by men who wear the garb of authority ; but we believe a great deal more im portance has been attached to these proceedings than they deserve. If the Government, by its general policy, had not aroused the suspicious nature of the Hindoos, the particular exertions of individuals, albeit men in authority, would have had comparatively little effect upon them. But the acts of the Government had generated an atmosphere of distrust around all their Indian subjects. While they were still in the state of irritation and dissension into which they had been thrown by the deposition o f the King of DUDE, alarm was created in the minds of the sepoys composing the Bengal armies, by inquiries, made by order of the Government, into the tenures of land in Oude— land in which both their families and themselves were deeply interested. It was then that the ominous word " confiscation " pas sed in audible whispers through the Bengal army, and great was the discontent which arose. By this series of improvident acts, com bustible materials were accumulated; and upon INDIAN POLICY. LORD STANLEY, in laying down in his address to the deputation from the Missionary Society the doctrine " that the sphere of Government and " the sphere of theological belief were absolutely " and entirely separate," added, " perhaps there " are many present who would not dissent from " the doctrine." It does not appear, from the reports which have been published, whether those who were present assented to the truth of this remark, or whether they protested against it. We have reason, however, to believe that it was allowed to pass uncontradicted those who composed the deputation being conscious that denial would be utterly inconsistent with the opinions which they are known to hold upon this question in the abstract. It is impossible, there fore, to abstain from asking those gentlemen to whom Lord STANLEY referred as " not dissenting " from the doctrine," what could induce them to be present on such an occasion ? On what pos sible plea could men who held that " the sphere " of Government and the sphere of theological " belief were absolutely and entirely separate," present themselves before a Minister of State, in order to bespeak his favour in India for the ope rations of the Missionary Societies, to which they belonged ? Does not such a proceeding on their part directly negative the theory that " Govern " went and theology are absolutely and entirely "separate "? Do not these gentlemen perceive that it is wholly inconsistent with this doctrine for them to go and make representations to a statesman, as a member of the Government, on matters which are " absolutely and entirely separate " from his functions as a Minister of State ? Had Lord STANLEY, too, acted up to the doctrine which he enunciated, he ought, we think, to have declined to listen to the deputa tion, coming to him in his official character, when, in that character, he had nothing whatever to do with the subject-matter to be brought before him. The real truth, however, which doubtless Lord STANLEY and those who assented to his doctrine unconsciously acted upon, was, that it is as im possible for man to separate Government from Theology as it is for him to separate the soul and the body of a man while life is in him. Whether with Jews, Christians, Mahommedans, Hindoos, or Bhuddists, theology (or religion) is inextri cably interwoven with all their relations of life ; and to think that it is possible for the governing . , THE PRESS, OCTOBER 16,1858. • -n." I power in a country to deal with its subjects with powerfully contributed to bring about that out• 'eference only to their secular concerns, is the break. But in admitting that the greased cart -. fancy that can enter into the mind. ridges were the direct inciting circumstance, we are --ver, it be said that we are here putting well aware that we concede the point that a zeal `-rpretation upon the doctrine in for their religion, and a dread lest they should all that Lord STANLEY, and be surreptitiously deprived of the privileges dim, meant to convey by which they believed that it conferred upon government to put them, was the incentive to those deeds of -t equality, and horror which seemed to indicate that the very departs nature of their perpetrators had changed from kind what it was before. We are also well aware 'll that the not unnatural commentary on these ad -;scions is :—" Behold the fatal consequence of apparently tampering with the religious +he natives ; persevere in the same -,lu will have India in rebellion *he other." This may not -'oral, but it is never very superficial -overnment the