The Press.
London, England, 1858-04-10 00:00:00

dissolved, and nothing of a like kind placed
in its room; and if the great empire of India
shall for the future be consigned to the sole
management, under a new title, of the President
of the Board of Control

ELABORATE versus CRUDE
LEGISLAT lON.
Is discussing the alleged deficiencies of our
public speakers, the Times of Monday makes a
remark which is not inapplicable to the consi•
deration of the new India Bill,—" We have
" fallen into a bad style through too great a
"contempt for elaboration" And if the observa-
tion ba true of the slipshod rhetoric of several
debaters, it is even more true of the careless
and crude way in which several of our recent
Acts of Parliament have been put out of hand
by boasted " Reformers." Even iu dealing
with the great question of a new Council for
India, the spirit of the " Liberals" urges them
to name a committee off-hand, and to cast
affairs upon them, trusting to the chapter of
accidents for the safe working of their new
scheme. One of the efficient causes which
create so much Conservative feeling in the
English public mind is an aversion to rough-
and-ready measures, to mere lath-and-plaster
legislation, which requires constant patching
and altering, ending in a desire for another
measure after a short time. If the Reform
Bill in 1832 had been drawn up in a more
comprehensive spirit, or on a more carefully
meditated plan, there might not now be a
demand for more Parliamentary alterations.
Such considerations ought not to be lost
sight of when Parliament takes up the forma-
tion of the new Conned for India. In the
measure of the Cabinet there is no doubt
that a comprehensive spirit is shown, by
arranging that the new Council should be
various in its component parts. That part
of the plan has been assailed by those
who wish for a " less complicated " con-
struction of the Council. Neithtr Parlia•
ment nor the public should be deceived by the
use of the word "complicated." The British
Constitution is singularly " ingenious," " arti-
ficial," and " complicated." It is also a very
" elaborate " system, and it is so because it is
comprehensive in its aims and reach. Prac-
tical statesmen and political philosophers both
concur in designating our Constitution as a
"mixed" one emphatically. Its variety, its
check and counter-check, its balance of
powers, its combination of forces to one end,
are its merits, and not its defects. Even the
Cabinet Counci!, seemingly so simple to
shallow observers, is really a mote complex
body than is supposed. Imagine that for the
first time it was proposed that the Queen's
affairs should be managed by a " Cabinet" on
the existing system, now familiarized to us by
experience ; in such a case nearly all the objec-
tions now urged by the opponents to the new
India, Bill might be brought forward with
equal plausibility. It might be said. "Oh !
the plan of a Cabinet Council is ridiculous,
complicated, and even contradictory. One
portion of it is to sit in the House of Lords,
and another part of it must be taken from the
House of Commons, and is it possible that
councillors so chosen could ever harmonize in
action ? Then it is suggested that in the con-
struction of these Cabinet Councils various
claims should be recognized. Some of the
proposed Ministers should he intimately con-
nected with the great territorial interests ;
others should be essentially administrative iu
their talents ; and some, again, should be
chosen with reference to their capacity for
leading in debate. Is it possible that so hete-
rogeneous a mixture, Peers and Commoners,
vast proprietors, great orators, could ever work
together? And observe the absurdity," it might
be said, "of excluding from the Queen's Cabi-
net Council all the talent of the country
which is without a Peerage or a seat in the
House of Commons. Lord MAcAucir, as a
Peer, may sit in the Cabinet, but neither a
Hallam, nor a Mill, nor a Grote, nor an Alison,
though so conversant with the deepest and
gravest social and constitutional questions, can