The Press.
London, England, 1858-03-13 00:00:00

Tli E PRESS, MARCH 13, 1858.

instability by taking up the cause of a fallen
and fickle Minister like Lord PALMERSTON.
There is no urgent question on which the
House of Commons need be compelled to
force on a crisis, resulting in an appeal to the
country. By universal consent the subject of
" Reform" is adjourned to next year, and there
is ample room for active legislation in the
current session, without reference to party
feelings. The House of Commons, before
another political crisis, might wish to see par-
ties shaped more clearly. The Liberal party
will, probably, require that its fortunes should
be removed from the fatal grasp of Lord PAL-
MERSTON, and that its management should he
committed to its natural leaders; for the joint
action of two such men as Lord PALMERSTON
and Lord J. RUSSELL would now present
several of the most repulsive aspects of a
" Coalition." Before the House of Commons
could resolve on any hostile proceedings to-
wards Lord DERBY'S Cabinet, it might require
that the internal arrangements of the Liberal
party should be placed on an entirely new
basis, a process which will take some time to
accomplish from the variety of pretensions of
various persons, who have been treated with
notorious injustice under the rule of " the
families."

Such considerations, with many others,
ought to make the House of Commons reluc-
tant to take any imprudent or hasty course at
the present time. It can, without the least
compromise of its dignity, afford to give "the
constitutional confidence" asked for by Mr.
DISRAELI at the County-hall at Aylesbury.
The House will not be so unwise as to taunt
the present Cabinet with holding office " on suf-
ferance." Such a course would only bring on a
premature dissolution of Parliament; and in any
appeal to the country it would be most de-
sirable that there should be ample time given
for the people to weigh all the eventualities.
Mr. DISRAELI rightly explained on Monday
that a Ministry sits on sufferance only after
the House of Commons has rejected one of its
measures. In one sense every Cabinet is on
the sufferance of the House of Commons, and
the vigour with which the House decisively
pronounced against Lord PALMERSTON is ample
vindication of its collective power and its con
stitutional prerogatives, which had lost some
of their rightful dignity under the fancied
dictatorship of Lord PALMERSTON, and his tail
of professional politicians who had lived upon
" the jobbery of Liberalism."

CHRISTIANITY IN INDIA.

AN earnest man who is in the habit of speak-
ing " strongly" is always in danger, when he
appears on the platform, of being misunder-
stood by some one reporter, who is perhaps
hardly intelligent on the matter under discus-
sion. Thus we were startled the other day by
being told in a weekly contemporary that Lord
SNArrEssuav had declared the duty of the
Indian Government with reference to religious
questions to be " simple neutrality,' and that
all that the friends of missions asked it to
do, was, " merely to do nothing."
We sought for the speech in question, and
found that the passage thus briefly referred to
had been given thus :

I consider it a very great misfortune that the term
"neutrality " should have been used, as it has been, in re-
lation to this subject. Persons have said that the Govern-
ment should be called upon to depart from its system of
neutrality. Now, I know, and you know, perfectly well
what is intended ; but our opponents have taken up the
word "neutrality," and said, " If the Government is to
depart from its neutrality, it must, of course, enter upon
the reverse of that, namely, a course of action, and that
course of action cannot be otherwise than aggressive as
regards the natives of India." That has never been our
intention at any time. Avoid, then, I say, the use of the
word " neutrality." If I am asked, " What shall we call
upon the Government to do?" I reply, call upon the Go-
vernment to do nothing at all. Let your prayer to the
Government be, "Do nothing at all; keep out of the
mess; your strength is in standing still." Say to the Go-
vernment, my friends, " We want you to do nothing; we
want you not to interfere with the arrangement of the
estates connected with those vile temples, we want
you not to interfere with the collection of religious
offerings at the confluence of the Jumna with the Ganges,
and at other places ; we want you not to interfere so es to
appear to give your sanction, by means of your officers, to
the rights of heathenism ; in short, we want you not to
do anything which will throw impedimenta in the way of
Christianity. Let the liindoo and Mohammedan priests
endeavour to prevent Beim froint becoming Christian
converts it they please; only let them he a lair field, tau

competition, for all, and we feel assured that, in that case,
Christianity will carry it, out and out, without the slightest
countenance, or support, or assistance, from the Govern-
ment." And then, when we come to that pm
question of caste, which has been so ably, so powerfully,
, and so unanswerably treated by Sir John Lawrene
again we ask the Government to do nothing what-
ever; to ignore caste altogether, and to act as if it did
not. exist. Let them say to the natives, "You may observe
the customs of cute, you may attach the utmost sanctity
to cute, but you must keep the thing to yourselves ' • we
cannot recognise cute; we do not wish to interfere with
your caste, but if you choose to come and serve ns, you
must serve us on our own conditions." Avoid
then, my friends, the use of the phrase, " What is
the Government to do ?' Maintain wherever you go that
the Government should do nothing.
Now, thus explained, the words are not very
objectionable, but still we are sorry that they
were used. Somewhat similar language fell
from Lord STANLEY at Lynn. On the occasion
of his re-election the Noble Lord said :
You hive heard a good deal of the discouragement given
to the profession of Christianity in India, of the patron-
age of native religions, and of the necessity of employ.
ing active means for spreading our own form of belief
in that country. Now, I venture to say that nine-tenths
of the stories we are told respecting what is called the
discouragement of Christianity by the Government of the
Company are absolutely untrue, and that the other
one-'enth is grossly exaggerated. No doubt, if any
obstacle has been thrown in the way of any person
conscientiously becoming a convert to the Christian re-
ligion, it is a violation on our part of principle and of
duty; and if ad the demand was that no such
obstacle should be interposed, I, for one, would not be
inclined to offer any opposition; but when it is asked
that the Government of India should violate the rule of
neutrality in religious matters, and should directly favour
and encourage conversions to Christianity, I us that is
a false and dangerous principle, which may carry you
further than you intend, and the only legitimate
end of which will be in persecution. I do not
say that if such an attempt were made it would fail
entirely. On the contrary, I think to a certain extent
it would succeed. The power of Government is very great
in Eastern countries. There are very large numbers of
persons who think they have something to hope or some-
thing to fear from the executive power; and I do not
doubt that if it were held out to the natives of India
that the Government favoured those who adopted the
European religion, a large number of converts of one sort
or another would be the result, but they would be exactly
the class of men who have neither characters to
lose nor consciences to restrain them. They would
bring discredit upon the European belief, and the only
effect of their adhesion would be to alienate the more
respectable classes among the natives. I am
satisfied, therefore, that the course which has been
hitherto followed, of strict religions neutrality, is the only
one which is either wise or just.
It will be seen that, between the sentiments
of Lord SHAFTESBURY and those of Lord
STANLEY there is great similarity. It would
seem to betoken great temerity in us were we
to express a different opinion, and indeed we
doubt if there is any real difference between
us. We entirely agree with Lord STANLEY S
view, that converts made by money or patron-
age are such converts as can do no credit to
any faith. We abjure, then, as decidedly as
either of these Noble Lords can do, the idea
of using the influence or power of the Indian
Government in the work of conversion. But
when we have conceded all this, we wish to
add to the view two other considerations,
without which we fear that the view of the
whole question would be incomplete.
1. When men talk of " neutrality," they
sometimes forget that there is a neutra-
lity which is unlawful. The Apostles rule
is full and clear,—" Whether ye eat, or
" drink, or whatever ye do, do all to the glory of
" GOD." Whoever accepts this instruction, and
honestly means to carry it out in practice, can-
not be neutral in a personal sense. His con-
duct may be tinged with something like
neutrality, by just and reasonable views of
what is truly expedient. But he himself must
have a decided purpose ; and just so far as he
himself is sincerely a Christian, will he also
be a proselytiser.
2. But to come to the practical part of the
question. To bring men to a clear under-
standing on any doubtful point, there is
nothing like an example. Now, three days ago
the Times treated us to a splendid euloginm
on the two LAWRENCES ; and the admiration
felt for the characters of these two great men
is universal. No one doubts or dissents ;no
one has any reserve. Were, then, the LAW.
RENCES neutral in matters of religion? Were
they not active, earnest, known and declared
proselytisers ? We accept, then, the verdict
of the whole public on the excellences of
these two men, and we only ask that Ind?,
shall be governed " on Lawrence principles.

THE RE-ELECTIONS.

SPEECH
OF TIM

CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER.

BUCHINGEGUISICIRE.—The Right Hon. B. Disraeli,
who had vacated his seat for Buckinghamshire on
accepting the office of Chancellor of the Exchequer,
was re-elected on Monday without opposition. The
election took place at ten o'clock in the County-hall
at Aylesbury, which was crowded as soon as the doors
were thrown open.
Mr. Plum. Diktrwozr briefly proposed the Right
Hon. B. Disraeli as a fit and proper person to repre-
sent the county, and the nomination was seconded
by Mr. HARVEY, of Langley-park.
Dr. LES, who was greeted with mingled laughter
and cheering, said he was quite prepared to propose
as a candidate, in opposition to the right hon. gentle-
man, a young man of excellent abilities and sound
knowledge, and whose father had rendered great
services to the country. He did not wish, however,
to throw down the apple of discord unnecessarily,
and if Mr. Disraeli would give a lair answer to some
questions he had prepared he would not nominate
another candidate. Dr. Lee then handed to Mr.
Disraeli a list of questions intended to elicit his
opinions as to the propriety of extending the borough
and county franchise, the adoption of the ballot, the
abolition of church rates, the suppression of traffic
in intoxicating liquors, the appointment of a Minister
of Justice, the extension of representation in the
Imperial Parliament to Canada and the other
British colonies, the establishment of tribunals of
justice and courts of reconciliation, the retransfer of
the Court of Probate from Westminster to the ancient
courts at Doctors' Commons, and the equalisation of
districts for the purpose of the relief of the poor.
No other candidate having been proposed,
The Haas Sauaxn' declared Mr. Disraeli duly
elected.

Mr. DISRAELI, M.P., who was greeted with
loud cheers, said :
Electors of the county of Buckingham, I think it but
due to my learned friend who has addressed us with so
much courtesy that should notice the questions he has
pat to me. My learned friend seems to anticipate that the
Government of Lord Derby will retain office for a period
of considerable doration—(laughter)—for if we are to con•
eider and to carry out the programme he has suggested I
think the settlement of the eight questions be has men-
tioned will certainly demand as many years. (" Hear,
hear," and a laugh.) I am sure my learned friend, alter
due deliberation, will admit that I cannot pledge myself
upon subjects of so much importance without taking
time to investigate maturely all the circumstances con-
nected with them. Several of the questions put by my
learned friend appear in some degree to have been bor-
rowed from myself. (A laugh.) I cannot, therefore, sup-
pose that he has introduced them at all in a hostile spirit ;
and I am satisfied he will agree with me that, although in
1112 I might have made pledges, five and twenty years'
experience is sufficient to teach me that it is better to con-
fine myself to a promise to consider measures than to give
any pledge to pass them. ( Laughter and cheers.)
think, therefore, my learned friend must be quite satisfied
that he has not in a vexatious manner proposed another
candidate. He extends to me, if not a complete, an motile
confidence, and I shall henceforward look to hi .n as one of
my honoured and faithful constituents. (Laughter.)
I have now, gentlemen, to offer you my warmest thanks
for having for the fifth time returned me to Parliament as
your representative. Believe me, the honour is one which
I duly appreciate. There is none which I place before it ;
and unless I possessed your confidence it would be impos-
sible for rue to occupy the position which I new hold. It
is therefore unnecessary for met) west phrases in assuring
you that the possession of your eonfidence is to me the
greatest treasure, and that to deserve it will ever be one of
the principal objects of my life. ( Cheers.)
A very brief space has elapsed since I appeared upon
these hustings, and I had then the opportunity, at a general
election, of entering very fully into the condition of the
country, and of explaining the prospects before us, and the
line of conduct which you were entitled to expect that your
representative would pursue. During that brief interval,
however, very remarkable events have taken place, and
recent occurrences—l believe to the surprise of the coun-
try, and certainly to the surprise of Parliament—have
occasioned a change of Ministry, and have brought to me
and to others, in very critical circumstances, the responsi-
bility of government. I feel, therefore, that you have a
right to expect from me on this occasion a frank and full
exposition of the views we entertain with respect to those
cation) circumstances which now engross, and indeed ab-
sorb, the attention of the country. Knowing that it is your
habit in this country not to permit the incident of a public
election to degenerate into a mere party squabble, but that
you expect jour representatives to treat yon as rational,
intelligent, and enlightened men, I shall address you con-
liketly, with a full sense of the responsibility of the words