The Press.
London, England, 1858-02-13 00:00:00

THE WEEK.

THE long-expected measure submitted to the House of Commons
last night by the Prime Minister involves neither more nor less than
a transference of the Indian empire from the Company to the Crown.
The India Board at home is to be nominated by the Crown. The
Governor-General is to be appointed by the Crown, and the various
Indian Councils by the Governor-General. For these extensive
changes the concession of a certain amount of patronage to the
Council is no compensation, as that body is the creature of the Crown,
and may reasonably be expected to exercise its privileges accordingly.
As we have never disguised our opinion that very extensive changes
were necessary, we no not affect to feel any anxiety for the threatened
citadel of Leadenhall-street. But there are other objections
to the course adopted by Government only too obvious and forcible.
Whatever may be the abstract wisdom of Lord PALME RSTON'S proposals,
we hold it to be the height of inexpediency to moot them while the war
is raging ; and that, not only because of the effect it will prod uce upon
the native mind, but because it is quite impossible that the question
can be treated with calmness while the public excitement is still
fresh, and while the horrid atrocities inflicted on the English race
have filled us with a blind and indiscriminating lust of vengeance, not
only on the immediate perpetrators, but on all whom we choose to con-
sider responsible or accessory. The knowledge of this spirit is just as
likely to lead to the total acquittal of the Company as not. When
great wrongs are discovered, we should legislate neither during the
first glow of public passion, nor during that temporary reaction by
which such ebullitions are certain to be succeeded. We must wait
till public opinion has regained its equilibrium, till investigations can
be prosecuted with comparative candour, and the proportion
of blame adjusted with some degree of fairness. We
therefore counsel patience and forbearance, and moat sin-
cerely hope that the Premier will not be permitted to ruin India
for the sake of being able to boast, as he has done before, that he will
never bring in a bill without carrying it. Yet that some such
catastrophe may ensue, unless we devote our entire energies to the
subjugation of our revolted provinces, is much to be dreaded Our
attention ought not to be divided for a single instant. The picture
drawn by Lord ELLENBOROUGH on Thursday night of the present con-
dition of the war we believe to be substantially true. All the success
that the Government organs so assiduously vaunt amounts to this, that
the abnormal horrors of a mutiny have subsided into the less startling
but more obstinate features of a regular war. Till this be concluded
we doubt the wisdom of interfering with the accustomed machinery
by which Indian affairs have been managed. The local knowledge and
experience of the India-house could not, it is true, save India
from gross misgovernment; but it dues not follow that
those qualities cannot be turned to temporary account
under the pressure of the existing crisis. It is useless to remodel the
Government while as yet there is nothing to govern. Before the
country is reconquered many considerations may arise materially
affecting our policy ; and then we shall repent the adoption of one of
those hasty measures which, as a noble author has recently observed,
invariably create fresh difficulties, and block up the path to really
permanent legislation.

Some very irrelevant questions have been asked in the House
during the last week. Take that, for instance, asked last night by
Mr. STIRLING, of Keir, as to whether the legacy left to CANTILLON, the
French officer tried and acquitted of shooting at with intent to
assassinate the late Duke of WELLINGTON, had been paid by the Go-
vernment of NAPOLEON III? Mr. STIRLING prefaced his question by a
rambling statement, which, while he professed doubt, conveyed to
every one the impression that he knew the facts to be true. Never-
theless, Lord PALMERSTON'S reply, assuming his statements to be
authoritative and correct, crushed Mr. STIRLING. " That portion of the
legacy (said Lord PALMERSTON) left by NAPOLEON tO CANTILLON and
paid, was paid under the reign of the Bourbons; while that portion
refused to his widow was refused by the Government of NAPOLEON III."
Now, what business can it be of ours whether NAPOLEON 111. thought
proper or not to pay a legacy left by his uncle? This spirit of petty
meddling with matters that do not concern us should not be encouraged.
We venture to think that such questions as those put by Mr. WAR-
REN and Mr. STIRLING as unnecessary and impertinent. They do not
even require a Ministerial reply ; but under the circumstances we are
happy in the one instance to find Lord PALMERSTON so well prepared
with what he assured the House was the true version of the facts con-
nected with the payment of the Cantillon legacy.

The Parliamentary week has been distinguished by debates of
considerable interest. The vote of thanks to the Army and Navy
employed in India was marred on Monday by an attempt of the Go-
vernment to obtain " surreptitiously " the acquiescence of Parliament
in the general policy pursued by Lord CANNING during his adminis-
tration. The trick was happily detected and exposed in both Houses,
and in the Commons, after a lengthened and animated debate, an ad-
mission was forced from Lord PALMERSTON that the vote of thanks for
LORD CANNISG.B assistance to the military operations was not to preclude

future discussion upon the policy or the measures of administration he
had adopted. The vote at length having been agreed to, LordPAisigatrrom
the same evening introduced his Bill to amend the law relating to
conspiracies to murder. The preliminary address of the Noble Lord'
deficient both in precision of speech and in clearness of thought, was
not calculated to win the sympthies or obtain the undivided consent
of the House. An amendment was moved by Mr. KINGLAKE, and the
Bill warmly opposed by many habitual supporters of the Government;
Mr. ROEBUCK, at a late hour, delivering himself of an harangue,
peculiarly conciliatory and persuasive, and as remarkable for its
freedom from exaggeration as for its softened language and guarded
tone. The debate was resumed on Tuesday, when Sir GEORGE
GREY read a despatch from Count WALEWSKI, expressing
the regret of the Emperor at the appearance in the Moniteur of
addresses which should hurt the susceptibilities of England.
Lord JOHN RUSSELL, taking an attitude of decided hostility towards
France as towards the Government, spoke strongly against the humi-
liation they sought to inflict upon England. Mr. DISRAELI, extracting
the proposed measure from the false declamation surrounding it, put
it clearly before the House that the introduction of the measure was a
mark of sympathy which might be paid to France without indignity
or humiliation. Lord PALMERSTON briefly replied, and the House
divided with an overwhelming majority of 299 to 99 in favour of the
introduction of the Bill. On Wednesday the Oaths Bill, to which we
have alluded elsewhere, was again introduced ; and on Thursday Earl
GREY in the Lords, in a bold speech, presented and
supported the petition of the East India Company, pro-
testing against the abolition of the Company. In the course
of the debate Lord ELLENBOROUGH drew a masterly sketch of our
position in India, deducing from his facts an argument
in favour of the existence of all the elements of a great war in India, a
period which he considered " most inopportune " for any considerable
legislative changes. Last night Lord PALMERSTON called upon the
House to legislate for India, and intro luced his Bill ostensibly for
the better government of that country; in reality, to vest its enormous
patronage in the Minister of the Crown. The proposal was met by
an amendment moved by Mr. T. BARING, whose distinguished social
position, great wealth, and extensive commercial relations give peculiar
significance to his simple amendment, " that the change is inex-
" pedient at the present time." Mr. BARING supported his amendment
in a speech of singular lucidity and argumentative force. The debate
was continued with vigour on both sides, and at length, on the motion
of Mr. Regimen, adjourned till Monday.

The most interesting part of the discussion on Wednesday respect-
ing Lord JOHN RUSSELL'S " Oaths Bill " was that which turned on the
consideration of the Roman Catholic oath. The subject is of consti-
tutional importance, and its discussion need not excite religious ani-
mosity. The case stands simply thus :—When the " Relief Bill " was
passed in 1829, certain securities were exacted by the wisdom of Parlia-
ment, and with the approbation of the Wellington-Peel Cabinet, which
had (as is now known by the " Peel Papers") forced the measure upon a
reluctant Sovereign. Those securities were (1) that the franchise in
Ireland should be removed from the class of " forty-shilling free-
holdets," and be transferred to more substantial constituencies; (2)
that the Lord Lieutenant and the Lord Chancellor of Ireland should
always be of the religion of the Established Church ; and (3) that the
oath at present exacted should be required from the Roman Catholics
entering the House of Commons. We may pass the first and second
of these securities ; but the Roman Catholics now wish to alter tha
third of them, and seek to make it a grievance. They wero
" emancipated" in 1829, and since then a great number of distinguished
Roman Catholics have sat in Parliament. Amongst them have been
the present Duke of NORFOLK, Lord E. HOWARD, the Hon. C. LANG-
DALE, MY. PHILIP HOWARD of Corby, Sir MICHAEL O'LonHLEN, Chief
Justice MONAHAN, Chief Barons WOULFE and PIOOT, Mr. Justice BALL,
and amongst English Roman Catholic Privy Councillors we find the
names of Mr. SHELL, Mr. MORE O'FERRALL, and Mr. WYSE. We need
not dwell on the fact that Mr. O'CONNELL and forty Roman Catholic
Repeal M.P.'s took the oaths and sat in Parliament for the last quarter
of a century. Now, without pronouncing any final opinion as to
whether the phraseology of the oath could be improved, we may appeal
to the numbers of Roman Catholics who have taken it, and made no
grievance about it. There is a serious danger lest, if the oath were
relaxed, some ulterior purposes might be aimed at. " Repeal " was
raised after " Catholic Emancipation " was conceded, and " Cardinal
WISEMAN'S aggression " took place after certain anti-Papal enactments of
the Elizabethan era had been erased from the Statute-book. The
oath is of constitutional significance, and it bears testimony to
the feelings and intentions of the Legislature in 1829. With respect
to the " Oath of Allegiance," as taken by the Members of the whole
House, there can be no doubt about its grave constitutional im-
portance. It is interwoven with our Parliamentary liberties, and to
tamper with it would be of the most serious danger to the Monarchy.
The proposal of " Life-Peerages " was objected to by Lord CAMPBELL,
amongst many others, as "an organic revolution," but even the pro-
ject of peers for life to be nominated by the Crown would be a less
revolutionary proceeding than an abrogation of the oath of undtvided
allegiance to the Sovereign. What amount of " spiritual " influence
the Pope may exercise over his co-religionists in Great Britain and
Ireland, is another question altogether. The interests of Protestant
England require that abundant political security should be given fur
our religious independence, and we cannot admit that there is any
foreign spiritual influence which can be enforced in our courts of
law. If the Roman Catholics had taken a different course since 1829,
this form of oath might possibly have been left to the toleration (