The Press. — London, England, 1856-08-02 00:00:00

AUGUST 2, 1856. a dministrative failure. Continual defeat must make a Government careless of reputation ; and if such carelessness becomes habitual, pleasures will be introduced for the mere sake of the popularity which may attach to their introduction, without care for their fate. The most slovenly construction will be thought good enough for bills unlikely to be criticised in detail. The Legislature must expect to be inundated with " slop " measures, framed not for use, but show. The Law Officers of the Crown will be degraded into the " Cheap Johns " of a country fair. The orator adverted to two points which were sometimes alleged as inevitable sources of Ministerial weakness ;—the change effected in our representative system by the Reform Bill, and the dislocation of party ties owing to the absence of distinctive principles among public men. But in the twenty-four years that have elapsed since the Reform Bill, the country has had the two strong Ministries of Lord GREY and of Sir ROBERT PEEL ; and even the weaker Administration of Lord MEL BOURNE was in a position to carry its measures, till, owing to its unfortunate retention of office after it lost the reality of power, the con fidence of the Legislature was forfeited. To the second point—the alleged disloca tion of parties—Mr. DISRAELI devoted the most eloquent portion of his address. He argued that the pretended dislocation of parties was not, and could not, be a reality—that parties must exist iu a constitutional country, and that the classes of opinion or sentiment, from which parties resulted, were as clearly marked now as at any previous period of our political history. He held that the maintenance of the existing electoral system, and the due influ ence of property in the exercise of the suf• frage, was a Conservative principle. That the union of Chuch and State, the maintc nanca of the Irish Church, and the upholding of those local and hereditary influences which are opposed to a crude centralisation, are Con servative principles. The orator dexterously availed himself of the derisive and acceptive cheering with which his enunciation of Con servative principles was received from the Ministerial benches, to show that there were on those benches gentlemen who held opinions diametrically opposite. Turning to foreign politics, he argued that a Conservative policy was opposed to the dismemberment of either the Russian or Austrian empire, though both had been advo cated by leading members of the Liberal part) ; and that Conservative principle was not less opposed to war with the United States or to hindrance of the natural expan sion of their territory. From the Ministerial benches Mr. DISRAELI was met by a cry that the policy of peace with the United States was not less Liberal than Conservative. The question is to be decided by facts. Who is to be taken as an exponent of Liberal ideas on foreign policy if Lord PALMERSTON he not ? In virtue of his ad ministration of foreign affairs, the Liberal party have chosen the Premier for their chief. The type of Conservative policy towsrds the United States is to be found in the special mission of Lord ASHBURTON, and in the memorable treaty concluded by the Noble Lord, entirely settling, and in the most con ciliatory and satisfactory manner, the most serious and threatening boundary question that has ever arisen between the two coun tries. What, on the other hand, was the Liberal policy represented by Lord PALMERSTON ? He arraigned every circumstance of the mis sion and treaty. He contended that the policy of this country towards the United States should not be a policy of conciliation, but a policy of suspicion ; that every point of difference should be stoutly contested ; and that the Government of Great Britain should regard the Government of the United States as a rival or adversary whose interests were adverse to its own. On all the great questions of domestic and foreign policy, enumerated by Mr. DisitAzcz, the Government had, he showed, adopted the Conservative, and not the Liberal line. But what did this fact prove? Not, surely, that THE PRESS, the Conservative principle and party were ex tinct, but that Liberal principles were in abey ance. The political situation, however unsatis factory in some respects, presented to the Conservative party two sources of consolation. First, they had the pleasure of seeing their principles prevalent in high places ; and secondly, they had the consolation of knowing that the Liberal party would throw back their cause for half a century, by selecting as its chiefs men who, while in office, not only made no attempt to carry Liberal principles into effect, but even shrank from avoiding those principles. The danger which besets the Conservative party at this moment is, lest they should be lulled into a false security through seeing the weakness of their opponents, and through be lieving the assurances so confidently set forth that parties are at an end. It is impossible that the present system can last ; and it is most unlikely that another session can pass away without a clear determination of the prin ciples on which the Government is to be con ducted. ad an DI( of in' go in in foi Cl Jo of in B tli P 1 tL cc of er 13( ti 01 fig ti el t! n tl n h e e fi tl 0 n a 3 d a C I 1 APPEALS Flto M INDIA. IN our last issue we devoted some space to the consideration of the question of Indian Appeals, and showed how necessary it was to establish an impartial and competent tribunal for their decision. In the present article we propose to give some further reasons for the conclusion at which we then arrived. These are chiefly the unfitness of the Directors to decide such questions, even if they had no interest in the causes in dispute ; and their especial unfitness, considering that they really have an interest in them to the full extent as great as that which any person has in any company or corporation on the maintenance of which his fortune and that of his relatives is dependent. On the first of these questions it is unnecessary to dilate, for the question of unfitness to act as a judicial tribunal applies as fully to the Directors as it does to the House of Commons. If anything, much more so, as the latter embraces many persons in the legal professions of the highest possible eminence and skill; while there are, we believe, oniy two barristers in the Direction, neither of whom has practised for years, and whose joint opinions would probably be thought dear at two guineas by any attorney or solici tor in London. Another great objection to the Legislature deciding such cases—which is, that they involve a preliminary canvass—applies equally to the Court of Directors ; for with them the whole question turns notoriously upon the amount and effect of the private solicitation one has been able to bring to bear upon the subject. In any event, therefore, it must be perfectly clear that as a tribunal for the decision of such cases the Court of Directors is (even setting the question of a personal interest aside) still more unfit than the House of Commons. But when the interest they have in the matter is considered, it will be seen that there is not a more objectionable body to commit the decision of them to in the whole of the Queen's dominions. For the very first element in the constitution of every judicial tribunal is that it shall be entirely impartial; and to such length is this principle carrried in England that a magistrate would be at once removed from the bench who took part in the decision of a case in which he was per sonally interested. Yet in India the very reverse of this holds good. There the Com pany select their own servants to decide the cases in which they themselves are interested in the highest degree ; and the Directors are allowed to form the only court of appeal to which the aggrieved can apply when they come to England in search of justice. To show that this view of the case is in no way overstrained, let us see how these cases arise which are day by day engaging more and more the attention of I the English public. The sole cause out of 723 which they all spring will be found in the extravagant remuneration given by the Com pany to its principal European servants, added to its financial mismanagement, and the con sequent necessity of casting about on every side for the means of meeting this mismanage ment and extravagance. And as the Governor- General and Governors share largely in the profits of the system, they have always, with rare exceptions, been the readiest to push it to its extremest limit. We hear a wonderful deal accordingly Ahnut the necessity of liberality when the interests of the European portion of the Company's establishment is in question, but when the salaries of the native functionaries are under discussion an income is held sufficient for them which would noto riously be inadequate for the maintenance of a menial servant, and which is consequently looked upon as a tacit charter for extortion by their brother natives in India. The wherefore of this is obvious; the native public servants are neither related to nor connected with the Directors, while the Europeans are all their relatives, proteges, or friends. For the Indian patronage, it must be remembered, has always been deemed the private perquisite of the Directors, and has never been administered as we have been accustomed to see administered thelironage of the great departments of the State ndeed, in numerous instances, it has been sold—a fact established in our law courts and recog nised by the Directors themselves. For every cadet has on appointment to certify that he has not purchased his appointment ; and we all know that it is not a proof of purity in a borough when one begins to administer the bribery oath. Whether rightly or wrongly, the impression is abroad that such nominations are still as purchaseable as ever, if not actually for money, at least for money's worth. They were judicially proved to be so in the case of Sir WILLIAM YOUNG, which occurred about three years ago. It is to extend this patronage that native States are annexed, in defiance of our treaties with them ; for the pretence of the welfare of the people can never be accepted in the face of the sale of Cashmere and its population to that monster of cruelty and iniquity, the Ma harajah GOOLAB SINGH. It is to maintain the emoluments of their proteges, which otherwise their bankrupt state must reduce, that they confiscate the pensions and jaghires of native princes and nobles upon every side. They feel that if the true condition of their finances were known they would speedily be deposed front power, and large reductions in the salaries of their connections and relatives in India made. To put off the evil day, they lay hands on every pension and jaghire in succession, heedless of the amount of misery they are causing and of the hostility they are giving rise to among those over whom they rule. A COURT OF PRIVY COUNCIL was held at Osborne on Monday, when the Royal Speech was submitted to and approved by her Majesty. His Royal Highness the Duke of Cambridge was introduced and took his seat at the council. CABINET Couscrrs were held at the Foreign-office on Saturday and Monday afternoons. The Councils sat for two hours and two hours and a half on each respective occasion. GENERAL CODRTNOTON arrived at Marseilles on Wednesday, and started direct for Paris and London. A MEMORIAL TO THE LATE MR. GVTERIE has been proposed, and a subscription is being entered into for the purpose of erecting a monument to his memory. Amongst the subscribers are the Marquis of West minster, the Earl of Strafford, the Earl de Grey, Sir John Swinbnrne, Bart., the Dean of Hereford, Sir William Jolliffe, Bart., M.P., and the Hon. H. A. Ad dington. THE SECOND TRANSPORTATION REPORT of the Select Committee has appeared. Among the wit nesses examined were Mr. M. D. Hill, Q.C., Sir A. Alison, Bart., Sir Matthew Barrington, Bart., Police • sergeants Mc Levy and Loome, Mr. W. Thwaites, the Hon. Sir C. Creswell, Mr. Inspector Brennan, Sir W. Erle, Sir R. Mayne, K.C.8., and Mr. Henry Mayhew, all of whom, with the exception of Mr. Hill, Q.C., are in favour of the revival of transporta tion as the punishment most deterrent from crime. Sir B. Mayne in his evidence reluctantly admits this view, and especially objects to letting men loose after short terms of imprisonment.