The Press.
London, England, 1854-08-05 00:00:00

AUGUST 5, 1854.

CHARLES WOOD draws his inspiration in all
cases from the India-house, instead of making
the India-house draw its inspiration from him,
the answer of the India Board was to the same
purport as that which he had got from the
India-house before.
He then appealed to the Judicial Committee
of the Privy Council; but, in their judgment
in the case, they declared that, on technical
grounds, it was one which it was beyond their
jurisdiction to inquire into unless directed to
do so by the Crown. At the same time
they remarked that the case appeared to
them a very fitting one to come before them,
should her Majesty be pleased to refer it to them;
and they fit ther expressed their willingness,
in that event, to go into the question with a view
of submitting to her Majesty their opinion
and advice.
With a judgment of such significance in his
hand, the petitioner again applied to Sir
CHARLES WOOD, praying that the case might
be remitted for adjudication to the Privy
Council, by authority of the Crown. But Sir
CHARLES WooD refused this reasonable request
on a ground which, if alleged by a judge in-
stead of a President of the India Board, would
afford a sufficient warrant for his impeachment.
Sir CHARLES WOOD'S words were, that, "if the
" petitioner succeeded in obtaining justice, it would
" induce numbers of other natives to follow his
" example, and the India Board would thus be
" besieged by petitioners for redress." A deputa-
tion, however, consisting of several members
of Parliament, were afterwards prevailed on
by the petitioner to wait on Sir CHARLES WOOD,
when, yielding to parliamentary influence what
he had refused to reason and justice, he pro-
mised to look over the papers, which it would
thus appear he had not even been at the
trouble of reading previously.
Such is the mode in which Sir CHARLES Wool)
thinks proper to govern India. As the grant-
ing justice to one would induce appeals for
justice from others, he gives a permanent
charter to wrong by closing the doors which
the Constitution has appointed should re-
main open to all for redress of grievances.
Having thus practically shown to the people
of India that complaints are useless, he peri
odically urges the absence of complaints as a
proof of their happiness and contentment
under the paternal sway of his Government.
Such presidents of the India Board as Sir
CHARLES WooD, carelessly unjust and indo-
lently tyrannical, are really the cause of all
that misgovernment in India of which we
now hear so much. Ignorant of its affairs, and
incompetent to the discharge of the duties of
his important office, the Minister is content
to draw his salary, allowing Sir JAMES Hoot)
and his brother directors to govern India as
they please. He thus entirely suspends the
operation of that constitutional check which
Mr. Pin long since saw was so necessary, and
which his sagacity provided. That great
Minister selected as President of the India
Board, not the least efficient of his followers,
but the shrewdest and most self-relying of
them all, the great DuNnas. The choice of the
present Administration seems to have fallen
on Sir CHARLES WooD for no other reason than
his proved unfitness for those other Cabinet
officofficeswhich are subject to the habitual
criticism and control of Parliament.

Oxford Bill has a parliamentary rather than a
Government parentage), Ministers forced on
the Bribery Bill before the Lords on the 3rd
of August. It was pretended that the urgency
of the measure brought it within the action of
the exceptions provided for in the resolution
of the 2nd of May. Several noble lords re
sisted the proposal of the Duke of NEWCASTLE
for practically rescinding that resolution. Lord
DERBY, sup
_ported by the Marquis of CLARRI-
CARDE and Lord REDESDALE, enforced the ne-
cessity of the Upper House having due time
for legislation. The Bribery Bill did not re-
late to the war, or to any affairs of immediate
" exigency," and, as no general election was
impending, it could not make any practical
difference to the country at large whether the
measure was made law in the present or suc-
ceeding session. Besides, the Peers should
adhere to the wise resolution of enforcing
their claims for adequate time being given to
them for legislation But Ministers desired
to have some appearance of having canied
through an important measure, and their ad-
herents mustered in sufficient force to give
them a small majority Nor would that result
have been attained but for the Bribery Bill
being limited in operation to a period of two
years, and its character thus being more expe •
rimental than final. The fact, also, that five
boroughs would have remained with their
writs suspended probably influenced several
noble lords in taking the measure into consider-
ation even at this late period of the session.
We are glad, however, that attention has
again been directed to the necessity for ad-
hering to the resolution of the House of Peers
to enforce its just claims to an active share in
legislation. Public time is not wasted in the
TJpper House by its members making speeches
for the newspapers. A leading and influen-
tial Ministerial journal was very severe
in its number of Wednesday on members
of the House of Commons who " cul-
tivate low arts of popularity," and who,
" while addressing the House, have their
" thoughts far away in taprooms, porten-
" tously lighted by gas, where over tables
" slopped by beer their remarks and cavilling
" will be read." If such a description can be
accepted as faithful, it would appear that
reducing the franchise still further can cud
only in lowering the character of the Legis-
lature. But it cannot be pretended that the
members of the House of Lords have wasted
the public time in the fashion thus described.
The tone of their proceedings is always more
business-like. The fact that so much time is
uselessly lost in the Lower House is the very
reason why an ample period should be given
to the House of Lords to discharge its duties
of legislation.
In case the resolution of :the 2nd of
May should be departed from, it must then
become a grave question whether the sugges-
tion of the Earl of DERBY should not be acted
upon, viz., of adjourning over the considers
tion of late bills from the House of Commons
to the opening of the ensuing session. There
may be objections to such a plan, but they
yield in seriousness to those against the sys-
tem followed in recent years of using the
House of Peers as a mere registration court
for the opinions of the Commons. We are
satisfied that the Peers will never acquiesce in
a system that is at once offensive and uncon-
stitutional, and we trust that they will con-
tinue to insist upon strict adherence to the
resolution of 2nd of May, by which provision
is effectually made for securing to them their
just share in the legislation of the country.

THE RIGHTS OF THE HOUSE OF
LORDS.
THE debate, on Thursday, in the House of
Peers, on the question of entertaining the con-
sideration of the Bribery Bill, was one of the
most important discussions during the present
session. Some time since the Peers passed a
resolution declaring that after the 20th of
July they would not legislate on bills sent up
to them from the House of Commons. The
object of that resolution was to secure effec-
tually their Lordships' right of examining,
and correcting (if need be), the measures passed
by the Lower House, and to terminate the
system that had grown up, of loading the
table of the House of Lords with bills at the
end of the session.
Finding, however, that the Coalition could
not point to any legislative measures (for the

THE PRESS. 723