The Sun.
London, England, 1853-08-05 00:00:00

read without blushing." And, upon a careful
examination of the documents comprised in these
two weighty Blue Books relating to our struggle
with the Burmese, it will be found that, in pass-
ing that eulogium upon the gallant Commissioner
in the Tenasserim Provinces, the Representative
of the West Riding was, in every respect, justi-
fied, seeing that Colonel BOGLE was the only
English official engaged in these negotiations with
the King of AVA and his Government, who
evinced any disposition whatever to exert himself
in bringing about an amicable settlement, in com-
pliance with the obvious and avowed wishes both
of the Burmese people and of the Burmese
Sovereign.
At the outset of his argument, indeed at the
commencement of the little Preface prefixed to
it, Mr. COBDEN, we observe, refers to the
appearance of the pamphlet in words rather apo-
logetic than merely introductory. He excuses
himself for having " made an abstract of the lead-
ing facts of the case for publication," upon the
score that circumstances prevented him from
bringing the subject directly under the considera-
tion of the House of Commons, after he had care-
fully perused the Parliamentary "Papers relating
to Hostilities with Burmah," with the design of
laying the matter before the popular branch of
the Legislature. After a perusal of the pamphlet
here submitted to general criticism, scarcely any
reader, however captious, will object, we opine,
to the fAct of its appearance at this moment, and
under these circumstances, as either unnecessary
or inopportune. Nothing indeed was really more
desirable, because nothing by possibility could
be more appropriate. The statement, in fact, has
come to us in the very nick—when attention
is being directed more scrutinisingly than ever,
to the evils entailed upon India by the detestable '
and indefensible system of the double Government.
It demonstrates the folly of that system in a man-
ner the most unanswerable, by laying bare before
the British people the real causes of the recent
war with the Burmese. It shows how the whole
quarrel sprang originally out of certain claims
made for compensation, to the amount of 9,948
rupees (" a fraction under a thousand pounds"),
for certain injuries said to have been inflicted by
the Governor of Rangoon upon one Captain
LEWIS, of the Champion, 410 tons, and one
Captain SHEPPARD, of the Monarch, 250 tons,
both British subjects, and the latter a native of
Chittagong. It explains succinctly how the
accused Governor was thereupon immediately
recalled from Rangoon by the King of AVA,
and how assurances multiplied of the amicable
disposition towards the English at once on the
part of the people and of the Government of
Burmah. Yet, evidence is immediately afterwards
adduced showing how—simply because on the 6th
of January, 1852, a deputation was " kept wait-
ing for a full quarter of an hour in the sun,"
within the compound of the Governor's house, at
Rangoon—the great yellow ship of the King of
AVA was seized in the night time by order of the
British Commodore, the coast of Burmah was
declared in a state of blockade, the amount
of pecuniary compensation demanded was raised
from 1,0001., or rather from 9201., to 100,0001.,
and a struggle was commenced which, says Mr.
COBDEN, with just indignation enough (p. 54), can
hardly be called a war, the more appropriate term
for it being " a rout, a massacre, or a visitation."
No wonder, seeing the horrors of that war and
the pitiable absurdities in which it originated, no
wonder, say we, that, recognising all this, Mr.
COBDEN speaks so contemptuously (p. 40) of Lord
DALHOUSIE'S famous " Minute" as a document
dwelling " with a minuteness quite feminine upon
details respecting points of ceremonial, and breaches
of etiquette !" No wonder that, upon a calm and
dispassionate review of all the circumstances, he
should speak further on of that same " Minute"
as—(words could not well be plainer)—" an un-
statesmanlike, immoral, and illogical production."
Those who may feel disposed to question the '
propriety of any such opinions through notions of
improbability, and suspicions of extravagance, we
ourselves would now earnestly commend first of
all to Mr. COBDEN'` pamphlet, and then (for cor-
roboration of that pamphlet) to the official papers
about Burinah, presented in the June of 1852,
and in the March of 1853, to both Houses of the
British Parliament.

" It's an ill wind that blows nobody good,"
au exceedingly bad measure that is not received
with unmitigated approbation in some quarters.
Sir CHARLES Woon's new India Bill, however,
appears to have achieved this infelicitous distinc-
tion—to be regarded with distrust and appre-
hension by every class in any degree interested
therein. The voice of public opinion has already
proclaimed in unequivocal terms the dislike of the
community in general to the legislative experi-
ment by which the modern Mogul attempts to
perpetuate an objectionable system, without con-
sideration for the wants and wishes of the
myriads of human beings whose future wel-
fare and prosperity were so largely dependent
on the result, and which was entered into and
passed through one House of Parliament in the
absence of adequate information, and without
affording any opportunity to the natives of India
of substantiating or even preferring their com-
plaints. The Press generally, throughout the
length and breadth of the land, exhibited almost
an unparalleled unanimity of condemnation.
Scarcely a single journal of any shade or variety of
political opinion, not even the veriest Ministerial
hack, applauded the hybrid and ill-considered
measure. Even the Directors of the East India
Company, who found that the double Govern-
ment was to be continued for an indefinite
period, and that they themselves would be
permitted to retain the dispensation of very valu-
able patronage a favour which they had no
right to expect, and that their salaries would be
increased under the operation of the measure—.
not only audibly murmured, but even earnestly
protested against some of its provisions. Like the
distinguished " waiter on PROVIDENCE" of the
olden time, when corruption was even more rife
than at present, they "took all they could get,
and kept grumbling." It is true, that by their
minute submitted to the Court of Proprietors,
they declared that they deemed it " inexpedien t
to offer any further opposition to the proposed
measure," but at the same time they reiterated
their objections to several of its details, and re-
gretted that their objections had " not met with
the desired success."

The Court of Proprietors went even further
than the Directors. For once they exhibited a
will of their own, and raised the standard of in-
surrection even in the precincts of Leadenhall-
street. So distinctly and unequivocally did they
exhibit their disgust at the entire project—so
manifest was it that they would refuse even the
qualified assent accorded by the Directors—that
the resolution concurring in the views and opi-
nions expressed by the Court of Directors in the
minute of the 29th July above referred to, was
withdrawn
praying and a strong petition to the House of
to
Lords objectingof its details, and
for many
many serious, alterations which
would totally
and render • ..e its most important fea-
tures,verY different, indeed, from
that which had, under
the Ministerial auspices,
obtained the sanction
The bill, then, has of the House of Commons.
not the unpleasant and very
singular fate of pleasing nobody
there-
fore, earnestly hope that it ;
may,and we,
eleventh hour, be withdrawn, or even at the
for a limited period, and not forced il:lmerely passed
recipients—that, conceived in haste, upon
may not be
unwilling
repented at leisure by all classesin
England as
well as in Hindostan.
We do not wonder at this general rejection,
this universal repudiation of the crude and un-
digested attempt at legislation. Sir CHARLES
WOOD proved, or rather endeavoured to prove,
too much for his own purpose. If one-
tenth part of the fulsome pangyrics heaped
upon the Anglo-Indian Government during the
weary four hours and a half devoted to the un-
mitigated praise of the existing system, were
warranted by the facts there was no adequate
reason for any alteration whatsover ?
If
the double Government had indeed exercised
such a beneficial influence on the condition of the
People placed under their charge; why so com-
.