The Press. — London, England, 1856-09-27 00:00:00

AJtt6l; No. 178.—Vord.IV. LONDON, SATURDAY, SEPTEMBER 27, 1856. ST;k 7MPED ED ....SIXPENCE. UNSIA..FIVEPENCE. Vrtss. the Government of India in the hands of the Company. Those reasons exist no longer The double Government of India has become ridiculous, and the time cannot be distant when the event so much dreaded by patriots of 1784 will be inevitable, and the Government of India, with all its patronage and power, will become a department of the Imperial Ministry. Indeed, whatever perils may attend Central isation, it is very doubtful whether its pro• gress can be arrested. It is a result and a necessity of advancing civilisation. Cen tralisation must advance with the growth of empire, and with the necessity for im proved social arrangements. The Police Bill of last session was carried in spite of the agitation raised against it on this plea of Centralisation. Notwithstanding this same cry, the department of education is yearly ex tending under Government authority. More bishops, more judges, more ministers, more commissioners, more Government inspectors and officers of all kinds, are continually called for by the wants of society, and this incessant multiplication all tends to the same result of strengthening the Ministerial connection. We cannot stem the tide if we would, any more than we can arrest the march of society. The only practical consideration is, whether means exist of checking the influence which this army of salaried officials confers on the Administrative Government. ties, the independent members of the Leis lature can act on their own sense of duty and convenience when they have won a position which makes them worth consideration by the Government. When the offer made to them is commensurate to their sense of their own importance, they invariably determine that they can serve their country better in an official than a private station. The class of members who usually succeed in winning the suffrages of popular constitu encies, are exactly those who are most intent on pushing their own fortunes. There are ways of influencing those gentlemen who are not worth an offer of place, or whose position renders them unable to accept it. Such minor favours as patronage for relatives, friends, or adherents, can be accepted without publicity, and without any obligation to depart from the conscientious support they are accustomed to afford to the Ministry. With such means of influence as a Government in our day possesses, it has little reason to dread opposition from independent members on its own side of the House. _ LONDON, SATURDAY, SEPTEMBER 27, 185 C• IT is generally conceded that there is one danger to which Liberty is peculiarly exposed in modern times. That danger is Centralisa tion. The natural movement of society tends continually to throw new functions and powers into the hands of the Central Government, to increase its patronage, and to consolidate its authority. Two generations ago this country was alarmed at the prospect of the Administration of India being grasped by the Ministers of the Crown. It was reasoned that the patronage of the Ministry was already so great as to render it difficult to maintain an independent party in Parliament, and that, should its power be strengthened by possession of the Govern ment of India, the independence of the Legis lature would be totally lost through the means of influence or corruption which the Adminis tration of the day would possess. The coer cion of the Crown would naturally follow the servility of Parliament, and the Ministerial connection would be absolute masters of the country. It would reign as the Mayors of the Palace reigned in the early days of the French Monarchy, with the other authorities of the realm for its instruments, and the Sovereign for its slave. Our forefathers believed that this danger was real ; they had not forgotten the corruption of WALPOLE'S rule, when mem bers of the Legislature were notoriously bribed, and the King was mastered in his closet by a few great families. The country rose against Mr. Fox's India Bill ; they decided against the Coalition by which it was attempted to make the Ministry the master of the King; and, while in France Centralisation was making rapid progress, and was advocated as the sole cure for all social and administrative disorders, England decided against a principle which it believed fraught with so much peril. In the one country, Centralisation became a convenient instrument for overthrowing the I brone, for establishing a mon s t rous revolu tionary despotism, an d f or a ft erwar d s deliver ing the nation unresistingly into the hands of a victorious soldier ; in the other, Freedom survived the tremendous shocks to which it was exposed, and, preserving the social fabric uninjured, blessed it with prosperity, and crowned it with triumph. Yet our ancestors of 17R4, could theyflook on the present state of political affairs, would have reason to smile at the alarm they once entertained. The Government patronage of their time was extremely insignificant when compared with the Government patronage of the present day. The administrative estab lishments were not a tithe of their present magnitude. The revenue was only seventeen millions, instead of seventy millions. And as for India, the foundations of that colossal empire we now possess had scarcely been laid. In 1784, there worn good reasons for leaving Even the-public press is not wholly exempt from Ministerial influence. Newspapers are actuated by a commercial spirit, and there are favours which a Government may fairly bestow, and the conductors of journals may fairly receive. It has not escaped observation, that throughout all the disasters of the Crimean war there was a systematic determination on the part of our most influential journals to screen the members of Government, and to cast blame, most unfairly, on the superior officers of the army. Independent journals are no more to be relied on as a check upon the Government, than independent members of Parliament : influences may be brought to bear upon each in exact proportion to their value. _ __ _ It seems to be a popular impression that two great checks exist on any abuse of Minis terial power. The first, in the popular charac ter of our representation ; the second, in the freedom of the press. And it has been held by very intelligent and influential persons that while these checks exist, no fear of the increase of Ministerial power need be en tertained. ...... If independence were always to be judged by profession, there can be no doubt that the most democratic portion of any representa tive assembly would always be incorruptible. But the whole current of facts runs directly the other way. It is precisely this portion of the House of Commons that Ministers, since the Reform Bill, have faind the most manage able. The representatives of the metropoli tan constituencies, for example, have in pro portion to their numbers obtained a much larger share of Goveroment patronage than any other class of representatives whatever. They have found the profession of Radical opinions a tolerably sure passport to lucrative office. Mr. B. HAWE3, formerly the Radical Member for Lambeth. is now permanent Secre tary to the War-office. The late Radical Member for Southwark was a Secretary of State. The Radical Member for Marylebone is at the head of the Board of Works. The Radical Member for Middlesex is Secretary to the Admiralty. Let us admit these appoint. ments to be proper ones, and still they show that " independent " members of the House of Commons are not proof against the temptations of office. Their character changes with their station. The saucy demo crat sinks into the discreet placeman, and the bold innovator into servile submission to established things. An adroit Minister knows both how to reward friends and to silence foes. The convenient support of Mr. KEOGH is rewarded with a seat on the Irish Bench. The fluent declamation of Mr. PHINN on the wrongs of Ireland is for ever silenced by an Admiralty Secretaryship. Clear from all party A story is told, that when the Irish Union was agitated, several patriotic members of the Irish Parliament demanded enormous terms for their votes. An eloquent speaker, more extortionate that the rest, was met by a flat refusal. " You will repent of this." said the patriot to the Minister, " and to prevent " misunderstanding let it be a signal that if " you assent to my terms, when we are iu the " House you hold up your finger." The Minister agreed. That night the patriot rose in the House to denounce the Union, and drew a frightful picture of the disasters it would entail on his country. The House was moved, and the Minister was alarmed. The patriot was in the full tide of honest indigna tion, when the Minister held up his finger. The orator changed his tone. "So much," he said, addressing the Speaker, " may be urged against " the Union, let us now see what is to be said on " the other side." And he drew such a flatter ing picture of the advantages to be conferred on Ireland by the Union as made the Minister satisaed with his purchase. Have there been no occasions lately, when the Government has held up its finger to our independent journals, and their tone has changed as suddenly as that of the Irish patriot? Why do we press these considerations ? Not assuredly to show politicalindependence rupt, but to show that pendent opposition to cessarily be fluctuatint being independent, its to be seduced into the instant they become r 4.1 OW ar that the pro • ,••••„.1,,. e is hypoed • t what is I • • d o Governitp icy and d •'lo l ei ct sl s leading lc. • : 1 ie Govern *-•• dangerousimikilte r pg N oitoiimmumsooo ,l.: r••• :NA ' 1 j