The Press.
London, England, 1853-06-25 00:00:00

THE INDIA BILL

MINISTERS persevere in pressing forward their
India Bill ; the defects of the measure being in
a manner counterbalanced by the prevailing
apathy of Parliament, which thus confesses
itself an assembly of delegates, indifferent
to all questions which do not interest the con-
stituencies. Perhaps this state of feeling
supplies the best apology for the existence of
that singular anomaly, the double government.
It is the function of the House of Commons
to control the Minister; but, if the House of
Commons chooses to abdicate this funetiol

by whom shall it be controlled ? The fault of
Sir C. \Voon's measure, in our view, is, not that
it does too little, but that what it does is done
in a wrong direction. For years past the
Board of Control has monopolised power,
leaving to the Court of Directors nothing be-
yond the disposal of patronage and the conduct
of routine affairs. Two remedies offer them-
selves—one, the ostensible as well as real
concentration of power in the hands of the
Indian Minister; the other, a reorganisation
of the directorial authority, by which the
balance, now utterly destroyed, may again be
redressed. To the former scheme we object.

on the simple ground that Indian statesman-
ship is not to be studied in the school of par-
liamentary debate. Irresponsible administra•
tion----and the neglect of the Legislature
renders the President of the Board of Control
practically irresponsible—is had enough in all
eases ; but irresponsible administration. eom-
bitted with ignorance in the administration,
presents a union of all possible inconveniences.
A Secretary for India. changed every three
years, must be in the hands of clerks and per-
manent under-secretaries. which neither
iu
theory nor in practice is desirable. The -
remedy, therefore, seems to lie in the opposite
direction. Can a depositary of power Ito
ereated—for none such now exists—at once
controlling and aiding the Minister, itself
independent of the Crown, and possessing,
not indeed a co-ordinate authority with
that of Government, but a perpetual
appeal, either directly or through written
protests, to the Legislature and the public.?
We believe that such a council can be
formed, and that it would preserve the advan-
tages, while doing away with the tiodts. of the
existing arrangement. But this is not what
Sir C. Wool) proposes. He retains the absur•
dity of the Court of Proprietors, in whose
.defence neither he nor any one else has vim •
tured to say a word ; he leaves the patronage
to be jobbed away see before, but he introduces
into the Anglo Indian council of Leadenhall-
street a nominee element, of which the effect
is to destroy the single redeeming virtue now
possessed by that body its independence.
For, where opinion is divided, the united
votes of six men acting together, out of
eighteen, ensures, in the long ran, a perms•
nent nuijority. Nor does the non-renewal of
the Indian constitution for any definite period
appear to us less objectionable. It sounds
very well to say, " Surely, if this bill which
1" you condemn does not work well, you will
'" not debar Parliament, from interposing to
" mend it." But the answer is plain " Par-
Ihunent will not interpose. Parliament in
" general cares nothing about India ; and the
" only means of attrueting attention to the
" subject is to fix certain periods at which the
work of legislation must be entered upon.
" Otherwise more popular topics will per-
" petually interfere ; and half Asia will eon-
" tinue to be misgoverned. in order that an
" Irish grievance may be talked about."
We profess no friendship ti the directorial
functionaries ; although it may be that during
the ast few months the current of opinion has
set in against them with undue strength. But,
in our minds, the old, anomalous, ill contrived.
but really independent court was, and is, with
all its faults, a better machine for the purposes
of joint administration than the subservient
senate which Sir C. Woou has substituted.
n,

THE Debate of last night added little in
illustration of our present view. The resources
of Mr. MACAULAY'S rhetoric were called into
play to meet the anal►lo and admirable exposi-
tion of Lord STAN I.EY MI the preeeding even
ing, and the brilliant orator relied on his
Indian experiences, now somewhat out of
date, to envelop the question in a judicious
haze. Popularly speaking, Mr. MACAULAY en-
deavoured it, perform the feat of trailing a
red herring for the benefit of Str CHARLES
Wool). The ,question being solely as to the

170

form of government here which is adapted to
produce the best results in India, Mr. MA-
cauLAY dwelt chiefly on the importance of
these results, as a reason for comparative in-
difference to the machinery which affects them.
Safe and popular in his illustrations, and sar-
castic in his tone, he interested the Rouse with•
out vindicating the policy of Government,
and the real question of the debate, which was
adjourned on the motion of Mr. Fa*Nets ViL•
uxas, is left in abeyance. We have yet to see
the extent to which Mr. BIACKETVII appeal to
the representatives of the commercial and ma-

nufactining constituencies will be responded to
by their sense of imperial obligations. The
interests of the greatest dependency which any
empire haspessessed from the beginning of his-
tory are now at stake, and their arbitrators with
our Indian administration are upon their trial.
Will they prefer a hasty to a deliberate
meat—an experimental and anomalous
to an authority well considered and consti-
tuted will they wait for a machinery as
perfect as the fullest information can make it,
or will they accept a scheme of government
which adds to existing imperfections, a dimi
*shed independence, and an uncertain re-
eponsibility

PERSONAL LIBERTY-THE NUNNERIES

BILL.
UPON the dying embers of Roman Imperialism
our rude progenitors east fresh brands from
their German forests, which for a time seemed
to extinguish the light of civilisation, but soon
gave forth to modern society a vivifying heat
in the principle of individual liberty. To en-
noble this feeling and to strengthen it—to
extend freedom of thought and of action—to
nourish the pride of self-reliance into that of
constitutional liberty, has been the aim of all
those free institutions which we owe to the
wisdom of statesmen, aided by the moral
strength of the people. The inherent dignity
of individual manhood is the only source of
strength in a community of freemen. Our
,laws have hedged round this citadel of freedom,
and our public opinion has hallowed it, until
the proud boast that an Englishman's house is
his castle, secure from the exactions of tyranny
or the prying eye of authority, is sanctioned
by law, and gloried in as an hereditary birth-
right. So jealous, indeed, of personal liberty,
as the security of a free state, have our laws
been, that they have gone still farther, and
have guarded it even against the individual
himseo man can by a binding contract
'sell himself to slavery.
Personal liberty, confirmed by the manly
wills of our ancestors to all who had strength
to claim it, has, by the generous spirit of
modern legislation, been insured to those
whose weakness might prevent them from assert-
ing the right. The emancipation of our slaves at
the national cost may be considered as the first
step in this tender care for liberty. Our laws
interpose the aegis of protection between fair
tory women and children and their employers;
between prisoners and their gaolers ; between
the detaining creditor and his debtor ; between
lunatics and their keepers ; nay, farther still,
between the parent and child. lest discipline
should harden into cruelty. In all these cases
we see that personal liberty has not been con-
sidered merely a right to be claimed, but a
Priaajige to be cherished and nurtured in
every member of a free community, as the very
soul of freedom which must pervade each
'fibre of the social frame.
One class needing a helping-hand for this
security in the enjoyment of the blessings of
free institutions has been brought under the
notice of Parliament by Mr. CnAm.serts's Bill
" for the Recovery of Personal Liberty." They
are those who, under strong religious impres-
sions, have taken upon themselves vows which
they may afterwards regret, .and entered into
religious houses whence there is no escape,
however irksome the impAtionment may be-
eome. They are, in mauylespecto, the most
helpless of all ; their natt* protectors, de-
terred by the spiritual terries of a religious
stem, dare not interfere hitween them and
persecutors ; and the coal sick prisoner,
lough* for liberty and light', appeals in vain
a hard spiritual director to a parent (if
owed to see one) whose kindly feelings are