The Press. — London, England, 1856-07-26 00:00:00

JULY 26, 1856. days of bygone sovereigns, by a stroke of the pen. He would have to proceed, through the law officers, before tribunals independent of him, precisely as if the case were one between man and man. And in the same way he -would be liable to be proceeded against if ho went one inch beyond the point the law allows. Of course, under such a system, appeals to Parliament are unnecessary, for there are properly constituted tribunals to try all such questions, presided over by judges who are irremovable, and in no way responsible to the Minister for the judgments which they give But in India the whole state of the case is re versed. There the agent of the Company in such matters is removable at pleasure, and is compelled, under the penalty of forfeiture of office, to do every act which the Govern ment directs. There if the aggrieved party applies to any of the courts of law for redress, they tell him that they have no jurisdiction, as the act is one done by the Government in its political capacity ; and that, therefore, there is against it no appeal. In short, if the Indian system existed in England, the Minis ter of the day might confiscate every estate within the three kingdoms to-morrow, and ignore every mortgage, lease, or settlement, or sub•tenure upon them, without let or hindrance, or means of remedy in any shape. To seize upon estates in this way, and then prevent the claimant from obtaining justice on the ground that his property has now be come a part of the revenues of the Crown, is a proceeding so monstrous that common sense and common humanity must revolt at it, unless the closing of the door of Parliament. be accompanied by the constitution of some more fitting tribunal of appeal. The materials for such a tribunal already exist in the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council. If the question be one of the con struction of treaties, then that is a point in which the followers of the civil law are espe cially versed ; and the Judicial Committee embraces within it some of the most eminent civilians of the land. If, again, the point be one hinging more on the principles of common law, or on equitable consideration, or on Mahomedan or Hindoo law, then the same tribunal is still the fittest to cope with it, for there is not one of these points with which its members have not to deal in other classes of cases every day. Again, no tribunal occupies a higher ground in the public estimation, nor is there one to whose decisions men of all parties would be disposed more implicitly to bow. Indeed, a recurrence by the Crown to the advice of its Privy Council in some shape or other will be necessary for its own sake now that by the alteration in the standing orders of the House of Commons redress for injustice done in India has become so peculiarly depen dent on the pleasure of the Crown. Hence forth it will not be Sir JAMES Hoon and his brother Directors who will have to bear the odium of such injustice, because the power of redress in the last resort is taken from them and vested absolutely in the Minister of the day. He it is who will alone be responsible to the country, because it is he who will alone have the power of remedying or confirming the injustice by granting or withholding the Crown's assent to the introduction of a Relief Bill. For his own protection, therefore, he will, we should suppose, be desirous of obtain ing the assistance so necessary to him in the performance of a duty which must otherwise prove so invidious and expose him so much to hostile criticism on the part of members sitting on the opposite side of the House. Whether, therefore, we regard the interests of the people of India or those of the Minister himself, we can see but one mode of escape from the difficulties that surround the subject at present, and that lies in the constitution of a fitting tribunal for hearing and deciding on such appeals. BISHOPS' RETIREMENT BILL. TnE suggestion that suffragans should be introduced as the remedy for our episcopal deficiencies has been warmly taken up in both Houses of Parliament. If it is an acknow ledged fact that our Episcopate requires to be strengthened, why not employ the simplest THE PRESS. and most natural means to that end? The system of deputies is one that must always extensively prevail in every complicated scheme of administration. Our Judges have deputies ; our rectors and vicars have depu ties ; and, in fact, almost every official of permanent rank in the country has some one on whom he can fall back, in case of tempo rary disability, for the performance of his duties. Why should a bishop be the only exception; why should not he too have his curate? Why should he be expected to resign his see when incapacitated for the performance of such duties as require phpical exertion, but not for such as demand expe rience, prudence, or learning? In America the system of suffragans works well. Here is at all events a precedent for the one expedient— while, for the other, of episcopal resignation, on condition of a retiring allowance, there is not a single one from the Reformation down to the present day. Pending the discussion of this question, it is necessary to point out the objectionable character of the course which the Government has adopted. When it had long been notori ous that our Bishops not unfrequently reached an age at which the efficient performance of their duties became impossible, and when the country had been at intervals shocked by the spectacle of one Prelate discharging the whole business of two dioceses to the unavoidable detriment of both—when these things had occurred so often that the necessity for some general remedial measure had begun to assume a definite shape, then our Govern ment steps forward, deals with a particular instance as if that was the only one likely to occur for a century, and deals with it by a method to which a large portion of the Church are unlikely to give in their adhesion. An excellent opportunity of laying down a general rule is thus thrown away, and our whole eccle siastical regime is unsettled without satis fying any one. Independent of the crude character of such legislation as this—and apart from the clumsiness of requiring a sepa ' rate act of Parliament to suit the caprices of each particular Bishop—the magnitude of the change involved should alone have been suffi cient to insure delay. " The measure," says Lord DERBY, "is framed in entire disregard of all "Church principles and Church discipline," and that so wide au innovation should be attempted without full discussion of the principles in volved, seems almost to justify the inference that Ministers rather wished to steal a prece dent that might be useful hereafter, than to bring before the public the general question at issue. If it is a good thing that the Bishops should be enabled to resign their sees, the Church will suffer less from a delay of one year in relieving the two dioceses of London and Durham than from the absence of a comprehensive enabling measure which the bill now hurried through the House of Commons must unquestionably be the means of deferring. But the positive evils of this hurried legis lation are not less serious than the negative. If it be desirable that Bishops should be en abled to retire when incapacitated for the discharge of their duties, it is highly unde sirable that they should come before the Minister with a proposal of their own which cannot, twist it what way we will, avoid the semblance of a bargain. If no general rule be laid down, Bishops will naturally consult their own convenience. Six thousand a year is a very fair income, even to a man who has been in the receipt of 18,0001.; but it does not follow that he who had been receiving but six thousand would be contented to retire upon two. We all know the unfortunate facility with which our consciences and our interests contrive to march hand in hand. The Bishop who did not wish to resign would but too readily per suade himself that resignation was wrong. But, were the question finally settled, and a general law in force regulating the retiring pensions, and recognising the resignation of Bishops as an established fact, which, whether right or wrong, was beyond dispute, each pre late would feel himself necessitated by a spe cies of moral obligation to retire when he had 699 reached a certain state of debility. Such a step would then be expected of him—now it is not. Under the existing system, although a bishop might be actuated by the sincerest desire to promote the welfare of his diocese, he might feel it still more incumbent on him to bear witness to a great theological principle, and to protest against any effort at tampering with the spirituality of the episcopal office. The necessarily inviduous character of all inquiries into the efficiency of public officers is acknowledged. There are of course certain cases in which it is impossible to 'avoid Ithem, but they are always to be deprecated, and very frequently give rise, as was recently the case with the Irish Judges, to most unseemly and painful disputes in the Legislature. This ought, surely, to be a strong ground for pre ferring that system of relief which would not entail such evils. And when we add the powerful temptation to jobbery held out by the method which the present Government seem inclined to adopt, we have said enough to show the absolute necessity of smnething further being done at the earliest opportunity. JAMES SADLEIR AND HIS FRIENDS. THE debate on Mr. ROEBUCK'S motion for the expulsion of JAMES SADLEIR, the fugitive from penal justice, cannot be perused with much satisfaction. Mr. ROEBUCK, indeed, has so often attempted to act the part of " conscience keeper " to the British public, that his propo sitions are received with disfavour in some quarters. But Mr. NAPIER, who seconded the proposal for SADLEIR'S expulsion, is one of the highest constitutional authorities in the House. lie is a scientific lawyer, a philoso phical jurist, as conversant with large princi ples as with dry details ; and that eminent lawyer thought that there was evidence enough to warrant the immediate expulsion of SADLEIR, and he supported his opinion with ample argument. Mr. J. D. FITZGERALD, who followed Mr. NAPIER, spoke evidently from " a cram," for the question was one not very suitable for nisi pries talents. The Recorder of London had previously smoothed the way for Mr. J D. FITZGERALD by intimating that the motion was " premature.' We should have wished, however, that the Recorder of London had given us the benefit of his moral indignation. We recollect the ease of a certain Mayor of a small borough, who, some years since, deposed to false statements before an election committee. He afterwards came forward and admitted the falsehood. The Attorney-General (Sir A. COCKBURN) did not interfere to prosecute, thinking, perhaps, that the exposure of such a case was ample punishment. The eloquent moral indignation of Mr. STUART WORTLEY in that case we still remember, and we would have wished that equal animation, and a similar burning desire that criminal acts should be punished, had been shown by Mr. STUART WORTLEY, when the case of the criminal was not a mere Mayor of a small borough, but an influential member of an unscrupulous family, which gave important help to Lord ABERDEEN. Mr. STUART WORTLEY'S moral zeal should burn with a steadier flame. The Right Hon. Gen tleman discussed the Sadleir scandal, in what Mr GLADSTONE would call a " gingerly " style ; and the contrast between the cautious treat ment given to the gigantic swindler and the virtuous indignation felt about the petty Mayor, who had surrendered to justice, is highly illustrative of a gentleman with such high personal and hereditary claims to the character of a " waverer." Other reflections will be suggested by the perusal of the debate. Personal scandals and official wrong-doings, whether real or alleged, were exaggerated malignantly against their adversaries by the official supporters of the Coalition. Where is the indignation of all their brawling accusers now, when one of their own connection is before them ? Not one of them speaks ; they " leave it to RoEnucx ; " and the matter is smoothed over. " The job bery of modern Liberalism " for audacity in hiding scandals, and fur the assumption of political virtue, exceeds even what might be expected. It is really " too bad."