The Press. — London, England, 1856-09-06 00:00:00

SEPT. 6, 1856. The misfortunes of this Indian princess might fairly excite our compassion, though we denied that she had good cause to appeal against the decision which has deprived her son of his throne. Her arrival to ask for justice at the hands of our Parliament would be of some interest if only for the historical recollections it awakens. It throws the mind bark for two thousand years, to days when princes of Eastern nations came to implore protection from the Roman Senate, and to appeal against the acts of Pro-Consuls who had deprived them of their dominions. Whatever the character of the supplicants, we are accustomed to regard them with pity as the victims of a force and a civilisation superior to their own. The Queen of OUDE and her suite have many claims upon our generosity, though few perhaps upon our sympathy, except those which arise from common feelings of humanity. They represent an Indian Throne with which we have long been in close alliance. Our Government in India has received from it direct pecuniary aid, and has been glad to recruit its army from the Oude population. The Royal family complain that they have been unfairiy deprived of their kingdom ; and as they come among us, relying on the character of the British people for justice,—demanding that their case may be fairly investigated,— hey are at least entitled to a respectful recep tion. We think our Government would have done itself honour had it given some coun tntance to this unfortunate family, and re ceived them in a manner in some degree suitable to the rank they lately held. We view the case of - Oude - as in some mea sure representative. A number of other In dian princes aro seeking redress for wrongs which they assert they have sustained at the hands of our Indian Government. Like the Royal family of Oude, they feel that the Ad ministration and Legislature of Great Britain alone can afford them redress. If Parliament should in this case refuse to entertain the appeal, we imagine that all other cases of a similar kind will fall to the ground, and that a fiat will virtually issue that the acts of our Indian Government are the acts of the Crown, altogether superior to supervision; and that however greatly the princes of India may con ceive themselves wronged, no means of redress are open to them. If this decision is to be come to, then it will be an act of mercy to the complaining parties to plainly acquaint them with it, that they may no longer entertain hopes of relief which will never be realised. When the case of Oude comes before Parliament, the principle must be determined whether, under any circumstances, the acts of the Indian Government can be ap pealed against. If the appeal be refused, it will only remain for the native princes and Governments of India to make the best terms they can with the British authorities in their country. But while the appeal is pending, let us, at 1 east, refrain from insulting the suppliants. and from considering the peculiar customs of their country and their religion as a reproach. All that we know at present is, that the Royal family hive been dispossessed of their dignity, and that the whole kingdom of Oude has been annexed toi our Indian empire. Let us prepare to hear with impartiality what the suf ferers by this seizure have to say against it, and what to urge in their own defence. Supposing the rule of the King to have been to thoroughly bad as to call for his deposi tion, it does not appear why the next heir should not have been appointed. This is an important point to be considered. It is probable that the broad ground will be taken, that the course adopted was justified by regard for the interests of the people of Oude ; that the native dynasty and system were alike worn out ; and that with the power to seize the kingdom came the right to do so, that a more beneficient system of government might be introduced. If the annexation is to be justified on this ground, or if this be the sentiment which will weigh with our Legisla ture in sanctioning it, whatever special and technical arguments may be urged in its justi cation, then a solemn responsibility will be cast on the nation to see that its real plea for THE PRESS. this monstrous act of spoliation is made good. It will be the duty of Parliament to investigate the social state of Oude to see that the people, as a people, are really benefited by the change, and to narrowly watch the manner in which the administration of its affairs are con ducted. In that case, too, the Royal family of Oude will be entitled to our sympathy, as the victims of an over-ruling necessity, and should meet with every alleviation of their fall it is in our power to offer them. We say only that while the whole question is in sus. pence, let us endeavour to hold an impartial mind, and treat the Royal supplicants with the respect common humanity should dictate. LIFE ASSURANCES. INDISPUTABLE POLICIES appear to give rise to much litigation. Resistance to payment or an attempt at compromise would seem the ordinary course pur sued by Indisputable Policy Societies whenever op portunity offered. There have lately been one or two doubtful if not discreditable cases of illegal resist• ance to legal payment by such Societies, which strive for and only attain public patronage through the understanding that all claims, with certain stated exceptions, are " indisputable." It has remained, however, for the " Unity General Assurance Associa cion " to obtain the acme of notoriety for " sharp practice." It appears that Mr. B‘YLTS, the manager of this Association, having quarrelled with the Board of Directors, has resigned his situation, and published a pamphlet in which is detailed the fol low' ir. In the early part of the year, a gentleman living at Glasgow insured his wife's life for 2,0001. The lady was in delicate health, and the medical officer of the society, Dr. Lloyd, recommended that the life should only be taken on adding six years to the age. The policy on these terms, and in the lady's name, was effected, forwarded and handed over to the in sured in January '56. In April, the lady's husband discovering that in event of her death the proceeds of this insurance would be paid to trustees according to previous settlement, inquired of the Society's agent at Glasgow, a Mr. WIELAND, whether the policy could not he so altered as to make hint the insitrer, and, if not declining to continue the policy as it stood. The Unity Board at once consented to cancel the original awl issue a new one. A fresh policy was made out, and on the 15th of June was forwarded to Mr. WIELAND for delivery to the insurer. But Mr. WIELAND discovering that the lady was " very ill," put the policy in his desk, and on the 17th wrote to Mr. BAYLIS a private and confidential letter, announcing the lady's severe illness and suggesting " improper measures, having for their object the recovery of the 2,0001. policy," and thus, in the event of the lady's deatn, clearing the Society of all liability. To this Mr. BAYLIS replies, that if any suppression as to the true state of the lady's health has taken place, to establish the fact at once, return the premiums and leave Mr. " to seek his remedy." An " indefinite something" still weighed upon the conscientious Mr. WIELAND'S mind, and he kept the policy in his desk. On the Ist of July the lady died, and then commenced the second act of this charming little domestic drama. That active agent WIELAND telegraphed the news at once, asked for Dr. LLOYD, and added, " I have not given up the policy." Dr. LLOYD sets off by mail train for Glas gow, and on arrival, WIELAND " opens his mind," the result of which frankness was, that Dr. LLOYD tele graphed to town to know if he might " compromise the affair for 7501." Dr. LLOYD then saw both the medical men who attended Mrs. —, made them admit that " they could not exactly point out the cause of death," "drew out " Mr. to a consi derable length without finding any proof of foul play against Mrs. —, and finally, " to test him to the lest," made every arrangement for a post-mortem examination. "At this," writes WIELAND, "we were in much perplexity, for the post-mortem examination could prove nothing and would cause scandal." He continues:— I then suggested that under all the circumstances, per. haps would come to a compromise; but the doctor saw great difficulties in making him an offer, and he enjoined me not to do so for fear of compromising the office. After consideration. however, and with many in junctions, he consented to let me try to bring it about, but not on any account for the offer to emanate from me. He suggested that now was the time to effect it or never, and I started by first train, having an appointment with him at night. How the delicate mission was performed, it is not for me to say ; suffice it to tell that at twelve that night, Mr. offered to compromise the matter for 1.000/., and I consented to carry this suggestion to Dr. Lloyd, but begged him to name 5001. as the amoutit. The result however was, that Mr. —, though having received an acknowledgment from Dr. Lunn) that Mrs. —'s death was quite satisfactory, yet not being in possession of the new policy, compro mised the affair for 7501., and the next day found 843 that his wife had revoked her former will and I?ft him everything, so that he had lost a clear 1,..250/. by the transaction. At this, writes WIELAND, "he was much chagrined." Dr. LLOYD, who appears, from WIELAND'S description, to have been a grea, re inforcement to that altive gentleman, having "cleverly managed" his brother medicos "to their "mutual satisfaction," an d mesmerised one or two disaffected shareholders to Mr. WIELAND'S high ap proval, came off to town to accept the thanks of the Board for his " clever" tact, whereby he saved them 1,2501. The Doctor , however, appears to have taken " all the credit" to himself, and to have ignored the conscientious WIELAND, who, expecting to receive a handsome bonus for his share in the business, and hearing nothing, on the 15th of July wrote to Mr. BAYLIS, pointing out that the notion of the compro mise was his, not Dr. LLOYD'S ; that although he did not look for any " pecuniary recompense," he did expect the thanks and approval of the Board for what he had undergone. Perhaps he adds, with charming naiveti : Dr. Lloyd forgot to tell you that the man wanted me to sell the company by making a more liberal arrangement with him, and accept of a portion of the proceeds. I did not to him express myself so forcibly as I felt inclined to do, lest it might break off the compromise which was so advantageous to the company ; but, in simply declining, I swallowed the insult on that account, though I felt it all the =ore deeply. Poor Mr. WIELAND ! how tender must his feelings be! and to be neglected by the Board after such an insult! It was too much for him, and so he threatens to send in his little bill for commission. Mr. Barns by this time having become acquainted with the true nature of the transaction, says he protested, at the next Board day, against the compromise effected, and declared that the balance of 1,2501. should be paid fur several reasons, the principal being that Mr. could recover by law the whole amount. The Board of Directors, he asserts, throught proper to approve the compromise, and Mr. Bwitus resigned. As yet we have only Mr. BAYLIS'S statement of the Board's conduct in this disreputable affair. The Board meet on the 11th instant, and then we may expect to hear their statement of Mr. BAYLIS'. Mr. BAYLIS'S point is that he did not read WIELAND'S letter of the 9th, and having left the whole affair to Dr. LLOYD'S discretion, knew nothing of the details except by D:. LLOYD'S verbal statement before the Board. What that statement was does not appear, but it does not seem to have affected Mr. BAYLIS, for he says he only came to the conclusion that the affair was discreditable when and not before he had heard WIELAND'S letter of the 9th read. It now only remains for the Board of Directors, Sir W. C. DALYELL, Sir W. G. FELL, Major MULKERN, Dr. LLOYD, and Messrs. JACKSON, TAYLOE, BRADLEY, GARLAND, and VAUGHAN LO exculpate themselves, to disavow their agent's acts, pay the 1,250/., which they will assuredly have to do very shortly, or to prove Mr. BAYms a gross detractor. LDRD STANLEY, in a recent letter to the Liverpool Financial Reform Association, says, upon the subjects of taxatio.i and financial reform : I agree in the preferability of direct over indirect taxa tion, if two conditions he conceded; the first, that of equality between classes, which by the capitalisation theory seems attainable; the second, that of accurate knowledge by Government of the amount of private incomes, which I know no means of obtaining. It is this latter difficulty more than the former, which prevents many public men from acceding to the principle of a large extension of direct taxation. With regard to economy in the adminis tration of the national funds, most reasoning persons are agreed up to a certain point. In reference ti military and naval expenditure, the Association have it in their power to do good service, by showing that a large force is not necessarily an efficient one, nor an efficient force necessarily a large one; that the chief colonies are capable of contributing more largely than they do to their own defence in time of peace ; that a militia may at all times furnish, at small co , t, a large reserve for the army ; and that a smaller number of officers may do the duty now performed by a larger number, if they be made to learn their profession, and if mere idlers be ex cluded. In the civil service I believe the reform moat wanted is to open it to competition, which will enable Government to dispense with a considerable proportion of those employed, and to pay the rest suitably. THE PRINCE OF ORANGE suddenly lost week ar rived off Kirkwall in a Dutch man-of-war steamer. The Prince landed early in the morning, and spent the day visiting the many local antiquities and beau tiful scenery Kirkwall boasts of. Before leaving the Prince was conducted to the Town-hail, and pre sented with the freedom of the burgh. THE AVERAGE Numwra of persons annually poisoned, according to the Registrar-General's re turns, is 536, or some 10 every week. Mr. Wilson* in a letter to the Times, suggests the issue of an nual licences for the sale of all poisons.