The Express.
London, England, 1858-03-31 00:00:00

fee expreOgi.

TO 001LOUTOOD3NTO.
entOssomai bluelsi tor 0 The ispreis,' Leedom Wring piper.
miss bb es Or OM% 141.1anyekboaebt. by Teo WOW* is the
Om eydilluMlia.

HIGH WATIR AT LONDON BRIDGE.
Tits Dil-4ficesim lb. 10. Mimosa. Zs. Mai.
Tcomalow—Nauleg. lb. 46a Aflame% Yom. Os.

LONDON, WIDNESDAY, MAROS 31.

Tax partisans of the late Ministry have opened in
full cry upon the scent of the " Government of India
" Bill, No. 2." They declare that it is bad, and that
it is incapable of being mended. They proclaim its
approaching rejection, and the consequent resigna-
tion of its authors. And this is the secret of their
clamour. They care not for India; the India Bills
are for them only so mach political capital. The
Jotting herd who were driven with so much reluc-
tance and recalcitration from the fat pastures of
Downing-street already fancy they see the gates of
these rich fields again opened to them, and give
vent to their joy in sufficiently characteristic
utterances.

Bat the people of England feel that legisla-
tion which is to decide the future hte of the mil-
lions of Ilindostan is a matter of too vital conse-
quence to be staked on the dice of political
hazard. The interest which England has in the
prosperity of India, the deep national responsibility
incurred by assuming the empire of so vast a region,
render the decision of the question how it is in
future to be governed one of the moat anxious pro-
blems ever submitted for solution to a nation or its
legislators. The task of legislating for India must
be approached in dispassionate mood, under that
deep sense of moral responsibility which befits so
momentous an undertaking.

The Bill presented to the House of Commons by
Lord PALMERSTON is the first that calls for notice.
The radical rice of that measure is the immense
amount of irresponsible power and patronage which
it entrusts to the Ministers of the Crown for the
time being and the inadequate security it affords for
the appointment of capable men in India. The Bill
proposes that the Home Government of India shall
be exclusively vested in a Council, composed of a
President and eight members, nominated by the
Crown—the President to hold office during pleasure,
the other Councillors for a certain term of years. '
This Council and its President are to be a corpora-
tion for the management of Indian affairs. In them
are to be combined all the power at present exercised
by the Directors of the East India Company and the
Board of Control conjointly. Except with regard
to such afais as are at present conducted by
the Secret Committee, all business is to be
transacted in Council. But when the Pre-
sident is present he may disregard the
opinion of the majority of the Council, and
follow his own if in opposition to it. And he
may do the same with regard to any resolution
adopted by a majority of the Council in his absence,
on the condition of his putting his own and their
reasons upon record. In two cases only is it neces-
sary that his determination should be sanctioned by
the assent of four other members of Council;
when matters of finance, or when the exercise of
patronage is in question. Thus, the whole adminis-
tration and patronage of India—with some inconsi-
derable exceptions—is proposed to be vested in nine

nominees of the Crown. One holding office so long
as it snits the arrangements of his political party,
the rest for a term of years. Neither the public of
India nor of England are to have any voice in
the nomination of this Council. It is indeed
liable to be called to account for its actions in Par-
liament, and with a view to this it is proposed that
the President and one Secretary appointed by kin'
may have seats in the House of Commons. But
Parliament has always had the power of examining
into and controlling the Government of India ; and
how many days of each session, on an average, have
been given to the affairs of India since India was
ours ? It is an arrant farce to speak of the dread of
Parliamentary responsibility as likely in the
slightest degree to influence the proceedings of the
proposed Council for India. The common sense
of the nation has declared that the only way
to prevent the President and his Council
from becoming mere tools of the Crown and
its Ministers is to resort to the elective
principle for the appointment of at least a moiety of
the Council. It is also felt that for the purposes of
intelligent and independent deliberation—as also for
an adequate supply of working committees—eight

1 . -
Councillors and ii President are too few.
Theme defects the Government which has sac-
ended Lord PALMERSTON'S profess to have remedied
in their amended Bill. They certainly have recog-
nised the principle of election by an independent
ooastituency as regards a moiety of the Council, and
they have increased the number of Councillors. So
far good ; but they have at the same time en-
grafted other modifications on the original Bill which
more than neutralise the benefits of these con-
cessions. The Council for India, according to Lord
PALMERSTON'S Bill, however objectionable the mode
of its appointment, would have been a reality. It
would have had duties to perform, and power to per.
form them. But the Council for India, *word-
ing to the " Government of India Bill, No. 2,"
is a mere excrescence. Lord Petweasrox pro-
posed to vest the government of India in a Pre-
sident and Council. The President could only act
in Council. Lord Ettexsoaccon proposes to vest
the government of India in a fifth Secretary of State.
The Secretary of State can act without the Council.
The Council in fact can only assemble when he sum-
mons it, or complies with its petition to allow it to
meet ; and when met it can only talk. The Secretary
of State does not need to be supported by a majority
of its members even on questions of finance or patro-
nage. Indeed, whereas the greater part of the
patronage is by Lord PALMERSTON'S Bill vested
in the President and Council, the whole
of the patronage is by Lord ELLENBoaoron'e
Bill vested in the Crown—that is, in the Secretary
of State for India and his colleagues of the Cabinet.
It is also worthy of remark that while provision is
made in Lord PALMERSTON'S Bill for the presence
of an accredited mouthpiece of the Council for
India in the House of Commons—a member who
can be interrogated as to its doings, and compelled
to explain or defend them—nothing of the kind
is to be found in Lord Ettratisoaouoirs. The latter
Bill declares that of the five Principal Secretaries of
State, only four can sit at one time in the House of