The Press.
London, England, 1856-08-02 00:00:00

APPEALS Flto M INDIA.

IN our last issue we devoted some space to
the consideration of the question of Indian
Appeals, and showed how necessary it was to
establish an impartial and competent tribunal
for their decision. In the present article we
propose to give some further reasons for the
conclusion at which we then arrived. These
are chiefly the unfitness of the Directors to
decide such questions, even if they had no
interest in the causes in dispute ; and their
especial unfitness, considering that they really
have an interest in them to the full extent as
great as that which any person has in any
company or corporation on the maintenance
of which his fortune and that of his relatives
is dependent. On the first of these questions
it is unnecessary to dilate, for the question of

unfitness to act as a judicial tribunal applies
as fully to the Directors as it does to the
House of Commons. If anything, much
more so, as the latter embraces many persons
in the legal professions of the highest possible

eminence and skill; while there are, we believe,
oniy two barristers in the Direction, neither
of whom has practised for years, and whose
joint opinions would probably be thought
dear at two guineas by any attorney or solici-
tor in London. Another great objection to the
Legislature deciding such cases—which is, that
they involve a preliminary canvass—applies
equally to the Court of Directors ; for with
them the whole question turns notoriously
upon the amount and effect of the private
solicitation one has been able to bring to bear
upon the subject.
In any event, therefore, it must be perfectly
clear that as a tribunal for the decision of
such cases the Court of Directors is (even
setting the question of a personal interest
aside) still more unfit than the House of
Commons. But when the interest they have
in the matter is considered, it will be seen
that there is not a more objectionable body to
commit the decision of them to in the whole
of the Queen's dominions. For the very first
element in the constitution of every judicial
tribunal is that it shall be entirely impartial;
and to such length is this principle carrried
in England that a magistrate would be at
once removed from the bench who took part
in the decision of a case in which he was per-
sonally interested. Yet in India the very
reverse of this holds good. There the Com-
pany select their own servants to decide the
cases in which they themselves are interested
in the highest degree ; and the Directors are
allowed to form the only court of appeal to which
the aggrieved can apply when they come to
England in search of justice. To show that this
view of the case is in no way overstrained, let
us see how these cases arise which are day by
day engaging more and more the attention of
I the English public. The sole cause out of

723

which they all spring will be found in the
extravagant remuneration given by the Com-
pany to its principal European servants, added
to its financial mismanagement, and the con-
sequent necessity of casting about on every
side for the means of meeting this mismanage-
ment and extravagance. And as the Governor-
General and Governors share largely in the
profits of the system, they have always, with
rare exceptions, been the readiest to push it
to its extremest limit. We hear a wonderful
deal accordingly Ahnut the necessity of
liberality when the interests of the European
portion of the Company's establishment is in
question, but when the salaries of the native
functionaries are under discussion an income is
held sufficient for them which would noto-
riously be inadequate for the maintenance of
a menial servant, and which is consequently
looked upon as a tacit charter for extortion by
their brother natives in India.
The wherefore of this is obvious; the native
public servants are neither related to nor
connected with the Directors, while the
Europeans are all their relatives, proteges, or
friends. For the Indian patronage, it must
be remembered, has always been deemed the
private perquisite of the Directors, and has
never been administered as we have been
accustomed to see administered thelironage
of the great departments of the State ndeed,
in numerous instances, it has been sold—a
fact established in our law courts and recog-
nised by the Directors themselves. For every
cadet has on appointment to certify that he
has not purchased his appointment ; and we all
know that it is not a proof of purity in a
borough when one begins to administer the
bribery oath. Whether rightly or wrongly,
the impression is abroad that such nominations
are still as purchaseable as ever, if not actually
for money, at least for money's worth. They
were judicially proved to be so in the case of
Sir WILLIAM YOUNG, which occurred about
three years ago.

It is to extend this patronage that native
States are annexed, in defiance of our treaties
with them ; for the pretence of the welfare of
the people can never be accepted in the face
of the sale of Cashmere and its population to
that monster of cruelty and iniquity, the Ma-
harajah GOOLAB SINGH. It is to maintain the
emoluments of their proteges, which otherwise
their bankrupt state must reduce, that they
confiscate the pensions and jaghires of native
princes and nobles upon every side. They
feel that if the true condition of their finances
were known they would speedily be deposed
front power, and large reductions in the
salaries of their connections and relatives
in India made. To put off the evil day, they
lay hands on every pension and jaghire in
succession, heedless of the amount of misery
they are causing and of the hostility they are
giving rise to among those over whom they
rule.

A COURT OF PRIVY COUNCIL was held at Osborne
on Monday, when the Royal Speech was submitted to
and approved by her Majesty. His Royal Highness
the Duke of Cambridge was introduced and took his
seat at the council.

CABINET Couscrrs were held at the Foreign-office
on Saturday and Monday afternoons. The Councils
sat for two hours and two hours and a half on each
respective occasion.
GENERAL CODRTNOTON arrived at Marseilles on
Wednesday, and started direct for Paris and London.
A MEMORIAL TO THE LATE MR. GVTERIE has been
proposed, and a subscription is being entered into for
the purpose of erecting a monument to his memory.
Amongst the subscribers are the Marquis of West-
minster, the Earl of Strafford, the Earl de Grey, Sir
John Swinbnrne, Bart., the Dean of Hereford, Sir
William Jolliffe, Bart., M.P., and the Hon. H. A. Ad-
dington.
THE SECOND TRANSPORTATION REPORT of the
Select Committee has appeared. Among the wit-
nesses examined were Mr. M. D. Hill, Q.C., Sir A.
Alison, Bart., Sir Matthew Barrington, Bart., Police •
sergeants Mc Levy and Loome, Mr. W. Thwaites,
the Hon. Sir C. Creswell, Mr. Inspector Brennan,
Sir W. Erle, Sir R. Mayne, K.C.8., and Mr. Henry
Mayhew, all of whom, with the exception of Mr.
Hill, Q.C., are in favour of the revival of transporta-
tion as the punishment most deterrent from crime.
Sir B. Mayne in his evidence reluctantly admits this
view, and especially objects to letting men loose after
short terms of imprisonment.

724

REVIEW OF THE SESSION.

MR. DISRAELI, pursuant to notice, moved, on the
25th ult., for a return of the number of public bills
and their titles, the orders for which in any of their
stages have been discharged during the present
session, and the date of the discharge of each of
such orders. The right hon. gentleman said :

Sir, I wish before we disperse to ask the house to
consider the course of public business during the present
session of Parliament. I take this step with no intention of
preferring any indictment against those who are mainly
responsible for the management of affairs in this house. I
have never deemed that the last day of the session afforded
the most convenient or the most fair occasion for prosecu•
ting a party attack, and I should not have made the motion
I am about to place in your hands were I not convinced
that there are great evils and even dangers connected with
our present position, and did I not believe that, in the
course of this discussion, some suggestion may perhaps be
thrown out which may, during the long recess, produce
an influence upon the public mind, and may lead to the
application—when we meet again—of some remedy for
those grievances which I am about to bring under your
notice.

Sir, the course T am taking is one which is not usual. It
is a course, as I have already said, which I think ought not
to be resorted to as a weapon of party warfare, and the
history of our proceedings shows that it has not been our
habit to have recourse to it with that object. Indeed, on
looking for precedents for the course 3 have adopted, I am
not aware that there is more than one to which I could refer
as an autarity, and that precedent it would not become
me to ad , for it was made by myself in the year 1848,
when I felt it my duty to ask the house to consider the
course of public business during the session then about to
close. I think, sir, that reference may at least acquit me,
or others, of taking advantage habitually of occasions of
this kind to disturb the serenity which should attend the
last hours of our companionship, or of having seized such
opportunities to express opinions adverse to the Ministry
which I should prefer to express in the course of the
session, when, if defeated in argument unfairly, I might
recur to the subject, and when the Government could not
say that at the end of their labours they were called upon
unexpectedly to vindicate a course which they might not
under such circumstances have an opportunity of cum•

pletely defending. In 1848 I made a motion similar to
that which is now upon the table of the house, and
think I may be acquitted of having been influenced on
that occasion by any party feeling, because the gentlemen
who then sat upon the Ministerial benches had only
recently attained them ; and I believe J may say with
truth, that they had gained their position mainly by the
efforts of my friends and myself. It was certainly with no
desire to disturb them in the occupation of those benches,
or to damage their reputation in the country, that I felt
it my duty, in the exigency which existed in 1848, to
call upon the House of Commons to consider what they
hail accomplished in the session which was then on the
point of terminating. That session was, I believe, one of
almost unparalleled duration in the annals of Parliament.
The Nouse of Commons had sat for ten consecutive
months, and it is not to be denied that at the end of that
time the account of our labours was of a very fruitless
character. Great dissatisfaction and discontent prevailed
throughout the country in consequence, and many reasons
were urged and many causes were alleged why so prolonged
a sitting had been productive of such slight and unsatis-
factory results.
It was said then—an,l this was a very prevalent mode
of accounting for the mortifying circumstances I have
mentioned—that the forms of the house were in fault,
that they were not suited to the age in which we live, and
to the multifarious and multiplied transactions with which
we have to cope. Again, it was said that another cause
which produced these unsatisfactory results was the too
frequent discussions which took place in this house. It
was said that there existed on the part of members of Par-
liament too great a desire to express their opinions, and
too much eagerness to debate the questions which were
submitted to their consideration. It appeared to me that
both these allegations had a very dangerous tendency at
all times, but especially in 1848, because Parliament was
then young, and there were, I believe, 280 new members
in the house. Nothing, J apprehend, is more to be depre-
cated than that men who have recently entered this house,
and who, consequently, have no great experience as to the
mode in which our proceedings are conducted, should be-
lieve that in the standing orders and forms of the house
there are obstacles to the satisfactory prosecution of public
business. Those who are acquainted with the proceedings
of this house know that its forms have been framed after
deep thought and mature experience, and that the allega-
tion to which I have referred has little foundation.

The second charge, that the members of this house
were too prone to discussion, was one which ought always,
I think, to be received with great suspicion ; for what is
this house if it is not a house of discussion ? It is a
House of Parliament, and its very name denotes its elm-
rac!er. It is a house of free and ample speech. and what-
ever questions there may be as to the policy of our legis-
lation, however little the labours of our investigating com-
mittees may be appreciated, I have always thought, and I
still think, that the main claim we have upon the con-
fidence, and I hope the affection, of the people is this—
that there is a general, a prevalent, and a well-formed con-
viction in the country that there is at least one place in
England where, in the long run, truth will always be
elicited. Weil, sir, at that time so anxious—and naturally
anxious—were the Government of the day to avail them-
selves of any plausible excuse to divert from themselves
the rising odium which attended the results of our parlia-
mentary labours that the Prime Minister absolutely pro-