The Sun.
London, England, 1864-05-06 00:00:00

THE SUN, LONDON, FRIDAY EVENING, MAY 6, 1864,

and this is the right season to undertake the work,
before another winter comes in with all its horrors
of iuclement weather to terrify the poverty-stricken
and strike down the feeble. If a better system be
not devised, when the present has so grievously
failed, it will be a lasting shame to all concerned in
the conduct of affairs, and must inevitably draw
down the indignation of the community.

The policy of annexation has long been denounced
by all conscientious and reflective men. That Course
so long followed by our Anglo-Indian administrators
has been felt to be justified neither by right reason
nor expediency. Like all manifest injustice, it

ended in producing indirectly an amount of loss and

njury more than commensurate with any temporary

advantage. It alienated the minds of the natives

from our rule, it made them auspicious of every

movement and fostered the idea that our secret
motive was to root out the ancient faith of the

Hindoos, and virtually to annihilate the people.

The feeling of enmity thus cherished bore bitter
fruits in the terrible year 1857; but the lesson

earnt in those disastrous months has had its effect.

t called the attention of England to the manner in

which her Indian Empire was governed ; it con•

vinced her that it was her duty, no less than her

nterest, to inaugurate a change in the administra-

ion of affairs in her vast Eastern dependencies, and

happily the consideration of what may be the most
materially remunerative course is no longer the
ruling question. The broad principles of justice,
humanity, and toleration, enunciated in the famous
Proclamation which transferred the Government of
India from the Company to the Crown, have at
least become the recognised form on which our
v.dministration should be modelled, however much
they may be disregarded by individuals confirmed
in the contrary prejudices. Unfortunately, the
enlightened statesman who presided at the India
Office at the time of the transition has been replaced
by a Secretary of State of entirely opposite views.
In many instances, Sir CHARLES WOOD has, unfor-
tunately, deemed it expedient to reverse Lord
STANLEY'S principles of action; but the public will
learn, with as much surprise as indignaticn, that

he favours that system of selfish' and reckless
annexation which has brought the name of DAL-
TIOUSIE into such discredit in India. The story of
Dhar,* as told by Mr. DJCKINSON, even accept-
ing only half his statements as facts, is
one of those narratives of oppression, injus •
tice, rapacity, and cruelty, which cannot fail
to excite the warmest indignation when fully and
fairly told. Allowing for exaggeration or acri-
mony there are some indisputable facts. Thus there
is no denying that the state of Dhar was, subse-
quently to the mutiny, annexed to the British
Crown, on frivolous and unjust charges, or that the
attention of the Board of Control having been called
to the effair,Lord STANLEY, after examining into it,
thought fit unconditionally to disallow that annexa-
tion. The State had been confiscated on the plea
that it was expedient to demonstrate to the native
princes and chiefs that the British Government held

the Durhars responsible for the conduct of their

armies, and the mercenary troops of Dhar having
joined the rebellion, such a punishment was con-
sidered advisable. Lard STANLEY, in his despatch
of June, 1858, very justly observes that " we could
not consistently punish this or any other weak
state for its inability to control its troops, when it
was patent to the whclo world that the more power-
ful states of Gwalior and Indore, and even the
British Government itself were unable to control
theirs." The Home Government therefore directed
that the attachment of the state should only con-
tinue pending the investigations into the instiga-
tors of the outbreak; that those convicted should
be purished, and that arrangements should be
made for restoring Lis inheritance to the young
Rsjah, and the young Prince being a minor, a
Regency was necessarily to be appointed. This

despatch, as we have said was written in June, 1858.
We are now approaching June, 1864, and not one
of its directions has been carried into effect. As
the title of Mr. DICKINSON'S work tells us, Dhar is
not restored, " in spite of the House of Commons
and of public opinion," neither, apparently, is there
much chance of its being so unless the House of
Commons bestirs itself in the matter. The young

R9jala ib kept in the background, and declared, by
interested parties, to: be incapable of exercising the
functions of Government, although, according
to Mr. -DICKINSON'S' testimony, ho is master of

three languages and of more than ordinary
intaigence. The State income and the revenues
of the RAJAH'S family have been seized, and all
allowance withheld from the unfortunate Ranees,
bath of whom have succumbed during the last
six years to the humiliations, the poverty, and
the anxiety of their degraded position. The trea-
sures and jewels of the State, valued at £BO,OOO,
have been seized, the heirlooms of the royal family
sold by auction, and the proceeds divided as prize.
money, which reached euch a large amount that it
was last year stated that every private soldier
would receive about £4O. This is bad enougb,
without Mr. DICKINSON'S explanation, that the
insurrection of the mercenary troops at Dhar was
entirely due to the supineness and negligence of
Col. DURAND, their officiating agent for the
Governor-General in Central India, who was
charged with the command of a moveable column
intended for tits support of the native Govern-
ment, which he persisted in retaining at Mhow,
disregarding all applications for help from Dhar.
At the close of August, 1857, the klussulmen
seized the fort of Dhar. The Durbar at once
forwarded to Colonel DURAND a statement of the
event, with particulars of the guns, grain, trea-
sure, ammunition, &c., in the fort, and begged
him at once to send a detachment of British sol-
diers for the subjugation of the mutineers. The
application was refused, as were many subsequent
ones to the same effect. In 1858 the RANEE,
despairing of justice from the agent, addressed
the Governor-General in the following terms—
" From the day the Wellaitees seized the fort, con-
stant applications for assistance were submitted
ta the British authorities. The importunity seemed
at last to be so distasteful, that even a reference
to the subject was deemed offensive." And this
was at a time when the adhesion of every native
prince or Durbar was of incalculable importance
to us! The poor RANEE had, however, reason to
think that the distaste for her appeals extended to
Calcutta, since the only notice of her letter was an
intimation that it must be forwarded through the
official channel—that is through Colonel DURAND,
' the very man of whose conduct she complained.
And it is on the ground of the outrages committed
by the mercenary troops whose outbreak he refused
to quell that the whole estate of Dhar has been con-
fiscated, the Ranees hunted to death, and the whole
of the treasured heirlooms of the family dispersed
ler prize money to men who certainly never fought
at Mar. It must not be supposed that these states
ments are only substantiated by the assertion of a
private individual, however trustworthy, since Sir
ROBERT HAMILTON, an experienced Anglo-Indian
offic:al, remonstrated strongly with the Govern-
ment, but in vain. Great blame must be attached
to Lord CANNING for deliberately disregarding iu-

" Dhar, not ticstored in Spite of the Ilouso of Commons
and of Public Opinion." By J. Dickinson, ER, A.. 5., Sz,2,
Kind, Parliament -street,

structions from the Horre-office without even com-
municating his extraordinary decision to his chief,
so long as Lord STANLEY retained office. Ques-
tions on the matter were disregarded; even a de-
spatch of March, 181,9. produced no effect; after
Sir C. WARD'S accession to office, however, Lord
CANNING forwarded a deepatch justifying the an-
nexation. The Home Government, however,decided,
according to Sir C. WOOD'S reply to Lord STANLEY
in 1860, upon retaining the State only during the
young Prince's minority. As we have before stated,
frivolous excuses have Since been made until it has
become but too evident that the good faith of Eng-
lishmen is not he trus'ed in India, and that Sir C.
WOOD looks with a favourable eye upon a policy of
annexation. It remains to be seen how the right
hon. baronet will exonerate himself when next
questioned, and what view the English Parliament
will take of a transaction so discreditable iu its
nature, and so totally opposed to every principle
upon which we profess to govern our Indian empire.

THE INNS OF COURT AND THE BAR,

TO THE EDITOR OF THE SUN.

Sits,—The public is much concerned in the subject of
your article on Calls to the Bar in your journal of yesterday,
and should be much obliged to you for it; but the reform
required is not confined to calls to the Bar. It should be
extended to the Bar itself—indeed, an examination test,
without any reform of the Bar, would be unsatisfactory,
because it would not materially, or perhaps rot at all,
benefit the suitor. It may be asked—what is a barrister ?
He is an undefinable gentleman. We know what an archi-
tect is as contradistinguished from a builder; but no one
knows what a barrister is as contradistinguished from a
solicitor. but though a barrister cannot be defined, his
privileges are well known. lie is by courtesy entitled to
be called " learned," though he undergoes no examination
whatever as a condition precedent to his having that title.
He is by courtesy heard by the judges, who silence all other
agents of the suitor. Hence he possesses a monopoly in
the Forum. 'What then is the Bar 1 It is a fraternity
supported by monopoly ; and upon what title is this mono-
poly founded ?—a verbal ceremony—which is as delusive as
the tricks of a conjuror. In short, a call to the Bar is a
proceeding founded on an imaginary title to learning—
which, however, confers civil privileges, as if an examina-
tion test, entitling the candidate to real learning, had been
gone through. The truth is that the Bar is governed
by favouritism. It has its origin in favouritism ;
and, from the inception to the end of his profession
The barrister is a monopolist. This is the reason why the
Bar tolerates the infamously unjust system of promotion, of
one barrister over another, and which originated in usur-
pation by the Crown over the long-established rights of the
Bar, and which since has been continued, and still exists, by
usurpation, to the great detriment of the Bar and the suitor.
The Crown, without any examination, without any test of
merit, without any public services, raises one barrister over
his brethren, and gives him advantages of years of exist-
ence th:ough which he has not lived—which practically
creates within the Bar itself another monopoly—an inner
monopoly of oral or audience business in court. Under
this system many a barrister has had his processional wel-
fare unjustly destroyed, for it operates in the majority of
cases with equal detriment both to the barrister advanced
and to the barrister passed over : to the former, because it
very frequently, indeed, causes him to be unemployed, since
the qualifications for oral business do not exist in him ; and
to the barrister passed over, because he may possess those
qualities, and yet, by his non-advancement, cannot avail
himselt of them. To the suitor it is worse than injurious,

it is a grievous public injustice; for in the taxation of coats
a far larger fee is allowed in favour of the favoured mem-
bers of this inner monopoly or inner Bar—the gentlemen
with Q. C. to their names—than they wtiuld ever gain under
a system of free and honourable cOmpetition.
What then is required ? The answer is obvious, First,
A severe and learned examination, so that the public, before
a man becomes entitled to the privileges of a banister, should
have some security that he deserves the title of " learned
gentleman."

Secondly, A removal of the division which exists between
the Inner and the Outet Bar—the Clown in no way inter•
tering so as to favour one barrister in preference to another ;
—in short, free competition at the Bar.
I am, sir, your obedient servant,
YERITAS,
London, May, 1864.

"Without pledging ourselves thereby to any coin-
cidence of opinion with " Veritas" in his demand
for the abolition of the dignity of Quen's
Counsel, we think it but fair to give our corre-
spondent a hearing, and therefore publish his
letter unabridged.—.ED. Sun

Herr Wilhelm Coenen's Matinee Musicale.

-- 0 -

This accomplished pianist gave a Matinee Musi-
cale at the Hanover-square Rooms on Wednesday.
He was assisted by Madame Lemmens-Sherrington
and Madame Shepherd Ley as vocalists, and
Signor Sivori and Monsieur Lemmens as instru-
mentalists, so that the performers, if few in num-
ber, were select. There was a due admixture of
classical music, relieved by the songs and ballads of
the ladies. Madame Lemmens-Sherrington, who
now occupies a foremost position in our concert
rooms, especially distinguished herself in Rode's
celebrated variations, which are well calculated to
display to full advantage her voice and style.
Mdme, Shepherd Ley, in addition to more ambitious
performances, sang a very pretty ballad with great
taste and expression. Signor Sivori, whose presence
is always an acquisition to a concert, played a solo
by Prutne, entitled " La Melancolie," to which it is
almost needless to add, he gave full effect. Mons.
Lemmens performed some of his own compositions
on the instrument which has lately become so
popular, while the concert giver acquitted himself
with credit. Altogether the performances appeared
to give general satisfaction, and the concert may be
considered as decidedly successful.

LATEST INTELLIGENCE.

LREUTER'S TELEGRAMS.]

DENMARK,
REFUSAL OF THE ARMISTICE BY
DENMARK.

COPENHAGEN, MAY 5, 3.39 P.M.

The conditions proposed by the Great German
Powers as indispensable to their acceptance of an
armistice, have been declined by the Danish Go-
vernment, which refuses to raise the blockade of
the German Ports.

THE WAR IN JUTLAND.
(From the Correspondent of the Times)
HAMBURG, MAY 6.
It is reported that the Austrians purpose crossing
into Funen,

La Patrie publishes the following telegram :
" HAMBURG, May 4, 6.35 p.m.
" The Austrian squadron has appeared at the
mouth of th© Etbe. It has joined the Prussian
ships. The Danish vessels have withdrawn without
giving battle."

AMERICA.

QUEENSTOWN, MAY 6.

The Inman steamship Etna from New York on
the 23d ult., arrived here 12.40 a.m. She brings
91 passengers, and 1,369,000 in specie. She landed
19 passengers, and proceeded for Liverpool at 1
a.m. All well.