The Press.
London, England, 1855-08-04 00:00:00

THE PRESS.

With such a tribunal in operation for the
reception of these appeals we should hear no
more of the scandals regarding India-house
intrigues, which now fill the ears of every one
who moves in Indian circles A native
coming home with a case would then be able
to approach the Crown with his petition in a
regular manner. Ho might employ what
counsel he pleased to argue it before able
judges at any length thought proper. His
appeal would thus be fully heard, and it
would be impartially decided ; and, if he
failed under such circumstances, his brother
natives, as well as the Indian Minister, the
Parliament, and the public, would feel satis-
fied that justice had been done him, and that
he had failed only because his cause was
wrong. We are sure that no one who fairly
considers the necessary result of such a plan
could fail to give it his approval. Nor would
its indirect operations be more important than
its direct ones, for the knowledge that such a
check existed would probably make the
Indian Government act with caution in such
matters, and only proceed to extremities when
its grounds were sure.
It has been suggested that the object in
view might be attained equally by appoint-
ing three high legal functionaries, not as a
separate tribunal, but as a committee of
assessors to the President of the India Board
in all such cases. In other words, that the
President should refer all such appeals from

India for their examination and report—
that they should be bound to act judicially
and without bias towards either party—
and that the President of the India Board,
except under circumstanees of a great State
necessity, should be guided in his final order
on the case by their report. Even this—to
which we cannot conceive the very shadow of
an objection on the part of any one—would be
received as a great boon by the natives, whose
great complaint is not so much that their
appeals to the authorities in England are un
fairly decided, as that they are never heard.
Even if they were heard, neither the Presi-
dent of the India Board nor the Directors
are qualified by their habits and antece-
dents to sit as judges in the last resort on
cases which require for their proper investi-
gation a judicial temper, and for their proper
decision judicial knowledge and experience.

SIR CHARLES NAPIER AND THE
ADMIRALT Y.
AT the late re-election for the borough of Southwark,
Sir CH►RLES NAPIER took the opportunity, as we
observed last week, to state his case a second time to
the public. Without question, it is highly discredit-
able that any dispute at all should be allowed to
continue between the Admiralty and one of its most
gallant officers ; and, moreover, that no attempt
should be made by the Admiralty to set the points at
rest. It is neither conducive to discipline, nor
advantageous to the good of the service, and the
public, we believe, would be glad to see the affair
thoroughly sifted and settled. Sir CHARLES WOOD
has superseded Sir JAMES GRAHAM, and there ought
now to be no difficulty about the matter. It is a
poor evasion to say that Sir CHARI.ES NAPIER'S
letters—the only things he appears to insist should be
published—contain plans which it would be to the ad-
vantage of the enemy to make public ; for the authorities
must admit that they seem in no way disposed
to make much use of those plans, whatever they may
be ; and no other excuse has yet been offered. At
present, the state of the question appears to be this :
Sir CHARLES NAPIER says that he was dismissed from
his command, and his character sullied, by such au
arbitrary act. The Admiralty reply that Sir CHARLES
is a very gallant officer, but—they chose to appoint a
successor. With regard to the first point, the term
which Sir CHARLES makes use of, "dismissed," is,
we think, scarcely jusitified by the circumstances of
the case. But the second point of Sir CHARLES'S
complaint is the more serious and better founded of
the two. His character has been sullied, not by
his self-called " dismissal," but by his non-reap-
pointment to the command, and it is clearly
the duty of the Admiralty, in common justice,
to afford the Admiral an opportunity of proving to
the public that he did his duty when in command of
the Baltic fleet last year. It is upon this very point
whole Sir CHARIF.S