The Press. — London, England, 1857-12-12 00:00:00

THE PRESS, DECEMBER 12,1857. for the suppression of the press which Lord ELLENBOROUGH tells us that he, when Governor- General, himself received. Then, as now, and ever since the period at which Lord MET CALFE emancipated it, it has been the object of the India-house to destroy the Anglo-Indian press. This has not been on account of the charges usually made against it in England, but because of the nepotism and misgovern ment of the Company that it has so conti nuously pointed out. Some of its worst fea tures, indeed, as judged in this country, were the rancour and unfairness with which a por tion of it pursued such men as Sir CHARLES NAPIER and Lord FALLEN BOROUGH himself. But in these attacks it was hounded on by the Directors and their civilian friends. Indeed, we have no hesitation in saying that, whenever the press in India has greatly deviated from its legititnate path, it has been under the influence of some high functionary persuading the editor against his better sense. That as a whole it has been un faithful to its duties we take leave to deny, and our evidence may be considered the more trustworthy as none have suffered more deeply at its hands than some of those to whom we have given our wannest support. Its errors have been exceptional ; and it is doubly base in those to taunt it with them through whose own seductions alone it has gone astray. It will now, however, have gained experience, and when again free, as we hope soon to see it, it will be better able to tell its real from its pre tended friends. It will see that those who never courted it in its prosperity are not its worst friends at heart, and that the loudest call for its destruction has emanated from those who, when it has erred, have caused the fault. It will see that they who are doing their best to save it are men who have never benefited by its influence; and that they who are crying for its destruction are persons who owe everything to its support. For the faction that aro now striving to ruin it are indebted to its aid for all the credit they enjoy, and ex hibit their intrinsic worthlessness by thus re paying the former favours so misjudgingly accorded to them by the Anglo.lndian press. This is just what constitutes the difference between Reform and Revolution. We find that some institution we have long been ac customed to respect does not work. Either from haste or from some hidden purpose, an alteration is made totally at variance with its nature. The machine is of course ten times more useless than before. And then, without ever considering whether it is not our own handiwork that is principally to blame, and whether a more judicious reform would not have effected our object, we topple down the whole fab►ic, and find we have brought on a revolution while only intending a reform. A statesman of high views and powerful mind, had he wished to remedy the spiritual desti tution which exists amongst us, would have found in the present situation an excellent opportunity for a comprehensive and perma nent measure of parochial reform. A redistri bution of parishes in our town districts would be a perfectly conservative measure, and would do no violence to the feelings of the in habitants, to whom their parish, unlike the case of our country villages, is a mere abstraction. But even to a man of Lord SHAFTESBURY'S intellect the notion might well have occurred. And that so thoroughly obvious a proposition has been brought for ward by no one of his followers is a perfectly clear proof that it is not the good of the ' Church, but the supremacy of a self-righteous faction to which their efforts are directed. It is needless to dwell on the excellences of the parochial system. Every Churchman must have felt them ; and they would only be weakened by description. We would merely observe that since the bishoprics of the Church have become pieces of Ministerial patronage, the independence of the parochial clergy has been a matter of more moment than ever. And that the assertion of this independence is in no way inconsistent with the highest respect for episcopal authority, must be clear enough to all those who are willing to remember what episcopal authority in the present day means. The evils of the proposed change may be very summarily described. The least of them is the use of unconsecrated buildings. In fact, we do not know that any Churchman would object to this practice in the abstract. But the avowed preference of an unconsecrated to a conse crated place of worship is naturally calculated to give offence, and, when the latter are to be obtained, looks very much like a wilful outrage on the most cherished feelings and traditions of a large portion of the community. We would remind Lord SnArrEsnimv, and that other " man of God " to whom he has sold himself, that something was once said about giving " offence to one of these little ones." We are sorry that two such eminent Gospel Christians as their Lordships should require to be reminded of it by us. But as the conduct of the Centurion once rebuked that of the Elect, so may we, who are still, we fear, reprobate, occasionally bring home a truth to those chosen Vessels of grace. The fact is that Lord SHAFTESBURY'S pro. posal, if ever carried into law, will inevitably produce the same mischief as the mendicant friars of old. The regular clergy will be shoved to the wall, now as then, not by superior learning, but by superior impudence ; and we shall have a gang of clerical orators travelling over the country, gaining the ear of " weak women," sowing dissension in every parish and in every family in every parish, and whose whole reputation will depend on their bringing into contempt the very system they were appointed to support. We invite our readers to consider impartially what human nature is ; what temptations must inevitably beset persons so circumstanced; and what an attractive career will thus be opened to men of a fluent tongue, but little learning, and still less inclination for the discharge of regular duties, the demands of a holy life, and the restraints of a responsible position. Another strong objection is to be found in the unlimited discretionary power thus vested in the bishops. No incumbent of a parish the population of which exceeds two thousand — within which definition comes three•fourths of the parishes of the kingdom above the status village—will then be safe from or foreigners, the courts of law are announced to be open, and no foreign sovereign can object to be put on a par with our own as regards the means for obtaining redress. Thus, the freedom of the press has been suc cessfully vindicated against foreign assault; and a rigid observance of the duties entailed on us towards neighbouring States, by the law of nations, has been made entirely consistent with it. _ _ _ We are bound to say—for it is a question of vital importance to the public—that the recent proceedings of the Government in India are calculated to cut this ground in ell such future discussions from under our feet. Our Minis ters cannot any more deny the danger arising from the freedom of discussion, for, whether rightly or wrongly, they have admitted it by their acts. They cannot allege that our jour nals are published in a language that is foreign to continental nations, for that applies to the language of the Anglo-Indian journals in regard to the continent of India as well. They cannot any longer assert that they give the Governments of foreign States the same degree of protection that they accord to them selves, for in the only case in which they pro fess to feel inconvenience from it they have destroyed the press ; nor can they aver that the freedom of the press is the constitutional right of every Englishman, in the face of the laws by which the English press in India has been taken away. They cannot, either, with out being guilty of deliberate insult, tell the sovereigns and people of continental States that they refuse that tribute to their sensibili ties which they profess voluntarily to have accorded to the princes and people of llindo- Stan. What they have done, as they aver, out of respect for the feelings of SCINDIA, HOLKAR, and the NIZAM, they cannot, without the gravest ground of offence, refuse, when applied to on similar grounds, to the Sovereigns of Russia, Prussia, Austria, and France. It is not, therefore, how far Lord GRANVILLE may be desirous of carrying interference with the press that is the question ; but to what extent the sovereigns in alliance with us may feel disposed to push to all its legitimate conse quences the principle which the Government of Lord P - ALMERSTON has thus laid down. We do not think that any amount of gain to our cause in India could have compensated for the admission of a principle likely to be productive of such ulterior consequences as these But, in point of fact, we have gained nothing in India by the destruction of the press. All that has been done by this has been to cut off from us the only channel of reliable intelligence, and to drive into violent hostility the only body in India whom the Government could fully trust. As regards the native press, that was almost wholly insignifi cant whether for good or ill. The amount of evil it could effect may be estimated from the ridi culous damages recovered by Government in the only case in which it obtained a conviction against it. Nor did this arise, be it remem bered, out of any sympathy on the part of the jury, for there is no jury in civil cases in her Majesty's Supreme Courts. The deliverer of the verdict and the assessor of the damages was the judge himself. Throughout the whole of India, indeed, the native press consisted chiefly of small lithographed repertories of local gossip and news. These were mostly like the manuscript news• papers established on long voyages on board ship. From thirty to two hundred and fifty copies was the usual amount of circulation of each, and they are stated to have issued less than two thousand copies in all. About half of these were taken by European patrons, mostly Civil officers of the Government, and the rest went chiefly among the Company's native Civil servants stationed at the place of issue. We doubt very much whether a copy per regiment was subscribed for by the Company's sepoy army in India. It is plain, therefore, that the European journals alone were had in view in the severe laws that were adopted against the press. In fact, the press was not gagged in conse quence of the rebellion, but advantage was taken of the rebellion to gag the press. This is shown by the whole course of Govern ment since the law has been enacted, and still 1195 LORD SHAFTESBURY'S BILL. LORD SHAFTESBURY'S proposed emendation of the Religious Worship Act, to say nothing of its obvious theological bias, is an excellent in stance of that slovenly legislation for which the British Parliament is notorious. The arguments which have been adduced in its favour partake of the same hasty and unre fleeting character. Granted that our popula tion has outgrown our parochial system, the right way to remedy that is not. to destroy the system, but to multiply the parishes. The fact no more proves our parochial system to be bad than a man's having grown too large for his clothes proves that he ought to go naked When, some years ago, the Episcopate was found inadequate to the growing wants of the Church, we did not adulterate it : we ex tended it. We did not appoint some new and anomalous ecclesiastical functionary in every diocese. We redivided the sees and appointed more bishops. We did not seek to stimulate activity by simply introducing confusion, nor to stir up episcopal zeal by a system of organised irritation. We felt that whatever vitality the Episcopate might still possess would be quenched instead of rekindled by any such blundering indignity. And why it should be offered to the rectors of parishes any more than to the members of the Right Rev. Bench it is difficult to explain except upon one hypothesis. Either that system is a good one or it is a bad one. If bad, why retain it at all? If good, surely the proper course would be to readjust the existing machinery ; not to embarrass it by aid foreign to its nature, and inconsistent with its harmonious action. In deed, it is just as absurd to suppose that the real efficiency of the Church can be increased by so incongruous a scheme as to fancy we could_increase our own speed by tying on a "tient since ttic law nits Deen enacteu, anti more clearly by the hints from the Directors thud leg. of a village—will then be safe from annoyano