The Sun.
London, England, 1853-06-09 00:00:00

4 ../..
AI
-----7,-,,,_}.
.
....
I , ,ir
v.,. ~,,
.. , .
' 4., 4 ) • , 4: ),' • , ,
C'
...1":.,) ,- -- _,--',e ~..,-,
4
,
I ',‘
• .oe4
tmcv.riir . 0.4
..f. 4
_.. ,•,,-,,,4,,,t-o- , Ari, „ ,i; lc
4'- ' • ' w • '1 4" - 7,-.,,. ' ' .••• ' eVi, „
---:
--' ' ' ------7
' J 44,, If/:. • ''
NA 4 - - ,
/ ".‘..*‘-..- . . Plti ' ' ...
'11r.% ' °4
'7 101 a 151114 lily, . • ‘,
, ' * '''...c. . '.:4

rE NEW INDIA BILL.

(From the Times.)

It becomes every day more clear that the India
Bill of the Government, which comes on again for
discussion to-night, has been due, both in its ma-
nufacture and its production, to a strange miscon-
ception of facts and opinion. Sir Chas. Wood seems
never rightly to have comprehended either his own
position or that of the question at issue. The first
point to be considered was that of postponing legis-
lation, and here it is perfectly evident, from the
arguments of the Ministerial statement, that the
case was not properly appreciated. Sir Charles ob-
served, that in the judgment of the best authorities
no further material intelligence was to be antici-
pated; that witnesses from India could add little to
our stock of knowledge; and that the reports of the
committees, taken in conjunction with private in-
formation, rendered us as competent to decide the
question as we were ever likely to be. All this
might be true in the main, but it proves nothing
for the Government bill. Delay was advisable for
the purpose, not of ascertaining whether or not the
existing machinery should be preserved—for on
that point there was no doubt even among Minis-
ters themselves—but of elaborating with greater
pains, solicitude, and success the new constitution
which was to be substituted for the old one. Very
likely we had advanced quite far enough to appre-
ciate the government of India as conducted by the
existing Court, under the control of the existing
Board, but the true question was whether we had
advanced far enough to discern the particular go-
vernment which should be put in its place. We
think the propositions now before the house contain
quite evidence enough that on this point. Ministe-
rial opinions were not so well matured as they might
have been.

Common sense would suggest to any man, as it
did to Mr. Bright, that the government of a' great
empire could never be reasonably intrusted to a
body of 24 individuals, elected, without any indis-
pensable qualifications of competence, by an irre-
sponsible and uninterested constituency through a
tedious and humiliating process. Sir C. Wood saw
this too, and substantially confessed as much. It
has, said he " been shown beyond doubt that those
most competent to take a part in the government
of India—coming home from that country, and
able to take a part in the administration of affairs,
are deterred by the. canvas from taking a seat in
the Court of 'Directors." Unquestionably, such
facts have been fully established, and, if Sir Charles
had but been pleased to remember the very last
eleCtion of a director which took place, he might
have extended his remarks to something more than
this negative censure of the system. But, having
been thus enlightened, what does he propose ? He
proposes to secure in six members out of the 18
that competence which, by his own explicit admis-
sion, is not to be expected in the others. He thus
deliberately retains a constituency and machinery
which he knows to be conducive at least tono good,
and on this machinery he permits two-thirds of the
governors of India to depend for their nomina-
tion. We do not think a stronger proof could be
desired of the incompleteness of those conclusions on
which the measure was based. Nothing can pos-
sibly be plainer than that all the members of the
Indian Council, and not one-third of them only,
ought to be presumptively competent to the dis-
charge of their duties. There would. have been
some consistency in maintaining that the system
was good altogether • but to confess that it was
bad, and then to apply a remedy affecting it over
only a third of its extent, is evidently absurd. Sir
Charles would reply, perhaps, that to confer the
nomination of the whole body of directors on the
Crown might be a hazardous experiment. Very
possibly, and this is just where a little more time
might have been.serviceably taken for deliberation.
As is is, Ministers have first admitted a principle,
and then, because they did not see their way to
carrying it out, have compromised it by half-mea-
sures, which satisfy neither the one doctrine nor
the other. Exactly the same thing occurs in
the suggestions about the patronage. The directors
are no longer to be intrusted with the nominations
to the civil or the scientific military services of
India. Then, why should they still nominate to
commissions in the cavalry and infantry ! One
branch of the service deserves just as much con-
sideration as the other, but Ministers could riot see
their way to the scheme of public competition in
its full dimensions.

In maintaining the expediency of immediate pro-
ceedings Sir Charles frankly qu'oted his best autho-
rities. " I have communicated," said he, " with
the directors, the great majority of whom are con-
nected with India, and the opinion they express
is this :—` Settle it as you will ; abolish, or deal
with our court as, you please, but legislate in
the course of the present session ; leave no un-
certainty in India." We have no doubt thrat
this opinion, since expressed by Sir James Hogg
in the house, was given with the most perfect
earnestness and sincerity ; but can anybody mis-
understand such views ? Sir Charles's advisors
well know that the system which they were inte-
rested in perpetuating was sure to suffer by every
day's reflection ; that nothing was so fatal to them
as inquiry, and nothing so serviceable as precipita-
tion. The transaction had commenced in a torpor,
of public opinion, and with a probability that
another twenty years' lease of power would be
granted without disturbance. As it happened, at-
tention was awakened ; dissatisfaction ensued, and,
at the rate matters were going, it was pretty plain
that a thorough consideration of the subject would
leave very little of the present Government of
India. The directors felt, therefore, that public
inquisitiveness had better be arrested at once by
" legislation during the present session," so that
something, at any rate, might be saved out of the
fire. The result shows the justice of their conclu-
sions. A principle fatal to their system has been
fairly admitted, and one-third of their privileges
has vanished. Had " legislation" been postponed
for a short time longer the other two-thirds would
have followed.

As to the danger of " leaving uncertainty
in India," it is manifest from the present mea-
sure that such danger has been made to cover
apprehensions of a different description. The
uncertainty " suffered to remain under the
Government bill is as great as it possibly could
be under any circumstances whatever, for it is
infinite. Not only is no permanency claimed for
the proposed arrangements, but scope is expressly
provided for change. Here are the words of the
Minister himself :—" The times change, and in
these days no one knows what necessity for altera-
tions may arise. We do not propose, therefore, to
fetter the power of Parliament for any period
whatever, but we propose that this Government
shall last until Parliament shall otherwise pro-
vide." Now, we really cannot discover what
kind of danger would have been created in
India by the mere suspense of legislation which
will not be equally contingent on such legis-
lation as this. Everything is left open by a mea-
sure which is thus made expressly provisional.
To such an argument Sir Charles might, perhaps,
reply by asserting that no statesman in the present
day would be likely to propose an unchangeable
charter for a fixed term of years. Possibly not ;
but, at any rate, the arrangements might be calcu-
lated for durability by being unhesitatingly ad-
justed to the best information of the age. Parlia-
ment might be left unfettered , but if every dis-
cernible abuse in the administration of India had
been removed as far as was practicable, and if the
best system of government which could be devised
had been adopted without compromise or reserve,
there would be very much less chance of Parlia-
ment's being called upon again. As it is, the blots
have been hit, but not obliterated ; defects have
been acknowledged, but only partially remedied ;
and a measure which is explicitly based on the ne-
cessity of decision leaves everything undecided,
with the road fairly open to change.

THE
udle Stuart)
Yesterday a
very
force. In
interesting i‘fETRO
tuPOreuTArnil (oPbt°aLlincezd byF FORCE.
—D
(from 1849 to 1852 inclusive) 22 officers were
was printed respecting the metropolitan police
four years
sent for offences, by the commissioners, before magis-
trates, and 262 by individuals. Of the former 18 were
convicted, and of the latter 36. In the same period
3,151 officers, including the number engaged at the time
of the Great Exhibition and those sent to Australia,
resigned ; 970 were dismissed 1 524 were suspended ;
2,495 were fined ; and 64 reduced in rank. During the
four years, 46,331 robberies were committed within the
metropolitan police districts. The value of the property
stolen was 153,4921., and the value of the property
recovered was 34,032/. There were 287,147 Persons
taken into custody by the force during the four years, of
which 145,982 were discharged by the magistrates ;
123,120 were summarily convicted or held to bail ;
18,045 were committed for trial ; 14,608 were convicted
and sentenced ; 2,714 were acquitted ; and in 723 the
;Ali were not found or not presented.
THE CITY OF LONDON POLICE.—Yesterday a return
to Parliament showed that last year six officers of the
City police were charged before the magistrates, who
are still retained. In 1852, the officers dismissed the
force numbered 23. There were 101 officers fined, 20
were suspended, 11 were reduced in rank of pay, and 74
had resigned. In the same year, 1,785 robberies were
committed in the City of London, and the property
stolen was 10,0981. 10s., and 2,6891. 45. 51. w" re-
covered. The number in the year taken into :•1 siody
was 4,439, of which 1,743 were discharged by ii e ma-
gistrates.

RESIGNATIONS OF THE MANCHESTER POT (4. Ato r
250 constables in the Manchester police t I 0 111 I.e i t
in their resignations up to yesterday, wl J n v• (w t
leaving their situations a month hence. I h e
wages are advanced. The salaries giyeit I is, rat t 7 4 a
whilst those of Liverpool police are 20s. art p
week.