The Express.
London, England, 1853-06-25 00:00:00

Pita tarpreisfi.

TO t OIatESI'ON L IshTS.

c•Osis •,!.. l'n•r,••••,'' t•taltgaillA lame wrigPirg
A ••- .1 awl FlT** ..lAtt, In Um,
"•;:v g: Exprer;•LeadatrAllllllll parr,
-"• • • •ma, 7Mddocli tla
• , ,

1,1,311 wArsit AT LONDON BRIDGIS
f.Das—liesfttate. 4% it5.........41teren0n. 4% ma.
, oww—Sturatar. SOIL. —.Aft. roma. Si. ta.

L'lNnO4v, SATURDAY, JUNE 23.

A.;Ats the Indian Debate has occupied a long
sight in the Howe of Commons, and again it has
adj urned. Tint chief actor ill this setotul scene
of elt. derma was Mr. MACAVIAI, who brought the

light of his talents and the power of his oratory to bear
ea the question. It W. 13 both remarkable and interest-
!cif to ate ham full the how,: was whilst he spoke, as
ren:ras:td slat the thin aneicnee who listcnod with
effort and distaste to the speech of Lord STANLEY
on :he pri.vious night. Every one was anxious to
hear the opinions of the man who—speaking with
personal knowledge of Ilindostan—was sure also
to talk with the ekarness of the logician,
the graa a:.d abandant illustration of the accom-
plished man of letters, and the ease, coned--
nen, and afoot of the practised rhetorician. Those
who listened to him were well rewarded, and
those who simply make acquaintance with his
oratory through the medium of a newspaper
rep al, arc likely also to be struck by the view
takeu of the 'abject by our most popular 'ois-
torian and most brilliant living essayist. Men of all
opinions will regard his suggestions with respect;
to =soy they must bear conviction. His reply
to Lord ELLE:seism:6n on the distribution of
patronage was most successful, and whatever Club or
Parliamentary cliques may say—however blatant
discontent may grumblo—there can be little doubt
Ilia: out r the length and breadth of the land the pro-
positioa to eistribtee a large portion of the patron-
age Us India by public competition is most gratefully
regarded. Of course the Tulles and their followers
object to any such distribution. They may not have
the courage openly to say so, but they want all the
loaves and fishes still to be strictly preserved for
their own snug party. Sir CLIAELES WOOD'S
r!JO will at all events open the door for the
admission of any man, however humble his position
or circumstances, who may display talent enough for'
victory in a public contest of talent. If this mode of
distributing n large portion of the patronage were
once adopted, it could not be withdrawn ; and hence
the bitterness with which some portion of the oppo-
sition approach this pint of the subject. Treasury
Secretaries and Whippers-lo have no idea of " throw-
ing away" a largo amount of patronage amongst
those who can't vote on a division ; and all who sup-
port Lord STANLEY'i motion instead of putting ano-
ther and a better one before the House, will practi-
cally be voting that the mass of the young men of
this country should still be shut out from employ-
ment and fortune in India.

Lord tiTANLEY confessed in his speech on Thurs-
day night that his amendment did not deal, and did
not profess to deal, with the merits of the great ques-
tion—How is the future government of India to be
carried on ? His object and that of his associates is
simply to defeat the Ministerial bill. Upon every
leading principle and every important practice in-
volved in that; momentous question, Lord STANLEY
is either ambiguous or silent. His discourse may be
regarded, in fact, as a laltonred excrcitation in that
style of :salve dialectics of which his friend
and preceptor, Mr. DISRAELI, is so distinbuished a
master. To go through every topic of a grave and
difficult question, and, while exhibiting a certain de-
gree of familiarity therewith—to avoid giving say
decided opinion as to how it ought to be dealt with,
appears to be the end and aim of Derbyiem, both
young and old. From first to last its aim and scope
is simply and merely faction ; and as the exigencies
of such warfare lead it to seek allies alternately in
opposite quarters, its chief effort is to adopt a tone at
once plausible enough to win the earnest and unwary of
the most opposite opinions, and at the same time
equivocal enough to leave those who use it free to
take any course they please at a future day. This
was in truth the whole scheme and system of Tory
opposition under Mr. DISRAELI'S leadership from
18-16 to 1832; and a most amusing and artful system
it was, for it succeeded not merely in perplexing
opponents, rind cajoling a curious variety of the odds
and ends of various discontented sections, but when
the time for performance had actually arrived even
those who deemed themselves the best initiated in
the esoteric wisdom of Protectionism found, to their
infinite dismay, that they also had been following a
mere Will-o'-the-Wisp.

Yet the same disingenuous and Dodger-like game
would seem to be all that we are to witness over

again: Young Derbyism has learned nothing from
the disastrous failure of its parental predecessor. It
is clever, industrious, and full of ambition, but it
cannot make up its mind, or say frankly and boldly
what it would be at; and until it does the English
people will never trust it, never believe in it,
follow it. Empires are not made by hollow
rhetoric, or polished sarcasm, or plausible platitudes
about the need of circumspection, the difficulty o"
deciding, and the danger of precipitancy. All these
are self-evident and irrefutable ; but after all these
have been said and sung, in every tone and with
every gesture expressive of grave dui)i..ty, the ple'l
common-place question will still remain to be an-
swered, What is the best thing to be done ? To this
question in the present instance Lord STANLEY does
not so much as attempt to give any answer.
"On the contrary," to use his own expression, "the
whole scope and tendency of his amendment was to
show that it was not expedient or possible to legis-
late permanent ly for India during the present session."
Be objected to the bill of the Government without pre-
tending to have any better plan of his own; and he
is ready to accept the aid of those who, like Mr.
Helm, desired to maintain the Company's power un-
abridged; and those who, like Mr. Buicaerr, de
mud its entire overthrow. But for Lord STANLEY'S
purpose, it is all the same, whatever the
ultimate consequences to India are likely to be.
Double Government or single—elective members or
Crown nominees—the division of patronage, or its
complete concentration—Lord STANLEY is ready to
take chance for what may be the future decision of
all such question', provided the aggregate discontent
of the house will give him for once a majority on
division, and thus enable him to take revenge on
those who last December drove him and his friend.
f:om power.
Were Lord STANLEY in mutest about Indian
Reform he would not thus fence and juggle with
sonsiderations which affect so deeply the future weal
or woe of a vast empire. The very terms of his
amendment betray his inability to decide whether
the Ministerial Bill is to be objected to as a perms-
!sent measure or a temporary one. Its closing words
indeed admit that it "omelet be regarded as a final
settlement ; " and thus every member who votes for
the resolution will place on record his conviction
that the Bill is only one to provide for
a period of transition. In no other sense have
we ever viewed its manifold effects with toleration;
and on no other condition should we feel disposed to
acquiesce in its pawing. But what, then, becemesof
the previous part of the Tory amendment, whisk