The Sun.
London, England, 1853-08-06 00:00:00

%ibt,

~G. _'~..

~~MI~A~~

LONDON, SATURDAY, AUGUST 6, 1853.

The Government of India Bill was last night
read a second time without opposition in the
House of Lords. The Noble Leader of her MA-
JESTY'S Opposition was not present to give expres-
sion to his own views on the important subject ;
but the Earl of MA LMESEURY acted as his repre-
sentative, and explained the course which the ex-
Premier would have adopted if he could have
attended in his place. This was to pursue what
a contemporary has designated as " the policy of
abstention"—to make no observation either of
praise or blame upon the measure, or, in vulgar
parlance, " to wash his hands out of the business"
from beginning to end. The Noble Earl felt that
" sufficient attention had not been paid to
the whole question, and that the Govern-
ment ought to continue the Charter in its pre-
sent state for two or three years, and to postpone
until another session any important reform." He
felt, however, the impossibility of offering effective
opposition to the bill at this advanced period of
the session. The future welfare and happiness of
one hundred and fifty millions of British subjects
was, it appears, as nothing in the opinion of a
numerous body of hereditary legislators, when com-
pared with the varied attractions of the race-course,
the sea-side, or the mountain heath. Had an
exhibition of intolerance been required —if
the object had been to reject a Jew Bill—or
a measure for the removal of an unwise,
vexatious, and most unjust restriction on
the law of marriage, to sweep away the last
vestige of religious bigotry, there would have
been no difficulty in obtaining a respectable at-
tendance, or at least proxies sufficient to justify
a trial of strength. For such purposes the vota-
ries of the course, the yacht, or the trigger, might
have been induced to abandon for a short time
their various pursuits, and to have appeared even
in the month of August, in the Imperial Palace
of Westminster. But what cared they for the
administration of affairs in Hindustan ? What
signified it, whether the wretched Hindoos could
obtain salt to flavour their scanty supplies of coarse
and tasteless rice, and to save themselves from
the painful and but too frequently fatal
consequences of a horrible disease ? The usual
time of separation hadarrived; they had already
started in pursuit of amusements suited to their
various tastes and
and the induce-
ment was not sufficient dispositions,o
for a single day—to the e tne fhem back—even
their more im-
portant duties. They, therefore
aban-
doned their functions, and in , virtually
Place of entitling
themselves to the thanks and
gratitude
a of the
people of India--in place of creating
poean throughout the Anglo-Indian empire, general
thanksgiving that we still had an Upper }Lire, a
they have given abundant occasion for the revival
of the discontented and querulous interro
gatOry
" What is the use of a House of Lords ?"
" The momentous question" in the present M.
stance does not proceed from some lean and him.
gry Radical
• —some thick-and-thin opponent of
hereditary privileges. It directly originates with
one of the most influential and respected members
of the titled aristocracy—a Nobleman jealous of
the honour and independence of " his order,"
and prompt and energetic in action, when he per-
ceives a fitting opportunity. No rational man
could for a moment suppose that the Earl of
DERBY would become the libeller or defamer of
his brother Peers—or that he would wantonly, or
on insufficient grounds, proclaim that at this
period of the year it was physically impossible for
any other party, except that of the Govern-
ment, to collect a sufficient number of
Peers to discuss the question as it ought to be
discussed. We fully. concur with the Noble
highly Earl in thinking it
disrespectful to their
Lordships," and. thatit
bring" placed the House in a
humiliating position" toforward one of the
most important and interesting
age, at the fag-end of the session,l)g questions of the
prac-
tically impossible to bestow the
hcare and atten-
tion required.
when it is prac-
on its details which it imperatively
But who is to blame for such a
result
it the aggressors who inflict the provocation Is
?
or those whose apathy and insoucealt:cae*
nvite
tio
a repetition of the insult, by allowing
it to
achieve its object ? We might pity their eon_
dition if this melancholy state of affairs arose
from their weakness or inability to protect them-
selves. But a different feeling arises when we