The Sun.
London, England, 1853-03-15 00:00:00

THE PUBLICATION OF

~ THE

SUN"

COMMENCES EVERY AFTERNOON

AT THREE O'CLOCK,

AND THE
.LATE OR THIRD EDITION,
CONTAINING THE
DEBATES IN PARLIAMENT THE SAME EVENING,
With all other Hews arriving up to the hour of Post,
AT SEVEN O'CLOCK.

EXPRESS EDITIONS
will be forwarded after the Post is closed by the

Latest Trains.

‘,"
Mt
vl D ',....44•-•-=,..‘"l"'T

LONDON, TUESDAY, MARCH 15, 1853.

India bids fair to become a ministerial difficulty
of no ordinary magnitude. The just complaints
.of the native inhabitants of the Eastern empire,
oc,,rroborated and confirmed by European residents
of iligh respectability and unimpeachable charac-
ters, have excited feelings of deep sympathy and
compassion among the people of the United King-
dom. The clear and convincing statements con-
tained in the petitions from the three Presidencies,
exposing such deplorable instances of misgovern-
ment, exemplified as well in acts of omission as
commission, have attracted the public attention
too forcibly to permit the renewal of the East
India Charter for a further period of ten or twenty
years without any material change or modification.
ft is naturally asked, why should the destinies of
150, 000,000 of British subjects be handed over
to the tender mercies of 24 elderly gentlemen
not possessing any peculiar qualifications for the
arduous and important duty ? Or why should

the possessors of certain stock, to the amount of

6,000,000/. sterling, with interest guaranteed by
the British Government at the very liberal rate of
10. i per cent. per annum, and then only redeem-
able on payment of 2001. for every 1001. stock,
be alone entitled to interfere in the government of
our Oriental dominions, by electing the Directors
vrho govern, or are supposed to govern, the wide-
spread territory, and who certainly exercise the
valuable patronage appertaining thereto ? It must
be quite clear that the proprietor of Fast India
Stock has no real interest in the prosperity of
India. No matter how ample may be its revenue
or large the surplus in its exchequer, he will receive
only his 101. 10s. on every 1001. ; and if Hindostan
completely passed from our hands—if the British
standard no longer floated over a single fortress
or an acre in its soil—the same 10/. 10s. should
be paid from the British revenue to the fortunate
stockholder. The English tax-payer has an ade-
quate motive to increase the Indian revenue, inas-
much as the surplus will go in aid of the other
demands on him, while he must make up the de-
ficiency, whatever it may be. But the East India
proprietor, as such, has none whatsoever. He is
secured, under any circumstances. His bond
must be liquidated to the last farthing. There
can be no refusal to pay, or even procrastination
as to payment.

The divided Administration is notoriously in-
jurious, leading to postponement of beneficial legis-
lation, while the matter under consideration is ban-
died backward and forward from Leadenhall-street
to Cannon-row, and from Cannon-row to Leadenhall-
street, from the Court of Directors to the Board
of Control, and back again to the honourable court.
It creates a division of responsibility that is very
injudicious and impolitic, permitting, as it does,
the real Autocrat of the Anglo-Indian empire, the
de facto successor to the GRAND MOGUL, to escape
the censure to which he would otherwise be liable
by transferring the odium to the twenty-four pup-
pets east of Cornhill. We are, perhaps, wrong
in terming them "puppets," for, although power-
less for good, they are still potent for evil. We
have seen the effects of their work in occasioning,
the recal of perhaps the most able Governor-
General of the present century, and in crippling
the operations of one of England's most distin-
guished generals. A sincere and zealous determi-
nation to remove prevailing abuses, and to improve
the condition of the native population, was the
head and front of the offending of these two
eminent men. They would not truckle to the
prejudices of the Honourable Board, or pursue
the beaten course which was fraught with so much
danger to the welfare and happiness of myriads
of human beings—they dared to think for them-
selves, and were therefore selected as objects of
the petty vindictiveness of some of the Directors.
The conduct pursued towards the Earl of ELLEN-
BOROUGH and Sir CHARLES NAPIER, should
suffice to prevent the renewal of the Charter, even
if there were no other cause.

It may be said—and we believe it has been as-
serted—that the Directors are efficient and ex-
perienced councillors, whose sage advice is cheaply
purchased by the transfer of the enormous pa-
tronage to their hands. They may certainly have
some
amount of experience—many of their
number have, We believe, served in India—but
it is a mere
candidate be selected ; accident
whether the most efficient
the present system of elec-
tion affords no grantee whatsoever
antee whatsoever as to the
fact. The only
required are the
possession of a certain. amount of India Stock, and
a fawning canvass of three or four years, and an
expenditure of some 3, 0 0 0/. 4, 0 0 0/. in committee-
rooms and other canvassing and electioneering
expenses, with perhaps som© signm
cant hints as
to the mode in which the future
patronage •,,
be exercised. The possessor of the Parliam will
he entary
franchise will be severely censured if
-ccept a
promise of a situation for some friend or relative
as the condition on which he will bestow his
suf-
frage on the obsequious candidate ; but there is
nothing to prevent the wealthy possessor of East
India Stock, with one, two, or three stars to his
name, from stipulating for a cadetship or writer-
ship for some promising youth of his acquaint-
ance.

The very conditions esaential to success in such
a contest would prevent many of the most eligible
persons, those who could suggest useful reforms,
who would really be beneficial councillors, from
coming forward. Nothing, indeed, could be more
fatal to success than the exhibition of any sym-
pathy with the natives, or any desire to improve
their condition.
is Let there be no mistake about the matter. It
the patronage alone that is cared for. For that
patronage
the would-be Director submits to the
trouble,
etatevae,sxspense, the degradation of his pro-
tracted
of his
time
t; For that he devotes three years
fashionable watering-
inuvliathilg
places, where rich ,
or wealthy dowagers or

spinsters, before whose names the magic stars are
affixed in the list of proprietors—for that he enters
, into frivolities that he must, if really qualified for
the duty, despise in his soul ; and fawns and
flatters, and (when necessary) promises all that
if
may be required at his hands.
And how is the patronage thus acquired exer-
cised ? Are the most worthy selected, or those
who possess, in the distinguished services of near
relations, strong claims on the country ? Far
from it. There are, of course, exceptions to every
general rule, and there have been instances of
disinterested and liberal conduct that reflected the
highest credit on the parties concerned. But, as a
general rule, the exercise of the patronage is just
what might be anticipated, from the manner in
which the privilege is obtained ; that is to say for
the benefit of friends and relatives, fitness for the
situation, or in redemption of promises made
while canvassing, or possibly for even a worse rea-
son—and this is the system which it is intended
to continue for ten or twenty years more without
awaiting the result of the pending inquiry, or
hearing the evidence on the part of those chiefly
concerned. This cannot be, and shall not be.
The nation will not tolerate such a proceeding,
nor sanction a renewal of the Charter save from
year to year, until the necessary information has
been obtained to warrant permanent and benefi-
cial legislation.

A Peer's word is his oath. He swears by his
honour ; every other man must swear by his
GOD. What is the interpretation of this ? Is it
that a Peer worships his honour as a God, or that
other men worship their GOD no more than a Peer
does his honour ? Is an appeal to his honour the
form of oath most binding on the conscience of a
Peer, and an appeal to GOD over the Bible the
form most binding on all other persons ? It were
singular if a patent of hereditary nobility imparted
to the line of heirs male this kind of Quakerish
view of oath-taking. The least, however, we can
expect in any case of the House of Lords is, that
they should have considerable hostility to judicial
swearing; or that, like members of the Society of
Friends, Separatists, &c., they should be peculiarly
open to conviction on the subject of abolishing
oaths. They, by constant practice, well under-
stand how binding is a solemn declaration. The
Noble Lords, exalted as is their position in the
State, will not pretend that morally and religiously
they " are not as other men are." Even the
Lords Spiritual would resent the supposition that
the conge d'elire and its consequences had made
their word of more value than it was before ;
equally, we suppose, would all the Lay Lords
affirm that their word was as good as their oath
till the hour that they were called to the Upper
House. Why, then, should not the practice of
the Peers become the universal practice ? Privi-
lege we will not call it; that were an insult to the
veracity of all other men. As we have hinted
above, nothing but deifying their honour, or
cherishing the most loathsome self-righteousness,
could induce Noble Lords to assert any peculiar
fitness to be trusted on their word, as other men
are upon their oath. We should not, therefore,
regret to abolish oaths entirely, to put all men
upon their honour, and, in case of their violating
a solemn affirmation, to inflict the severest penal-
ties now appropriated to perjury. It must tend
to raise every person's estimate of the importance
of truth, and to increase his jealousy for the
regard paid to his word, if he found his word
treated as sacredly as an oath, and its violation
entailing all the social consequences of oath-
breaking.

This is, indeed, the point to which Christianity
would bring us. Admitting that a literal inter-
pretation of its twice-repeated precept, " Swear
not at all," may be an overstrained one, we must
yet all perceive that the reason by which our LORD
condescends to enforce His couimand, is substan-
tially, that our word should be equal to our oath ;
that our yea should be yea, and our nay, nay.
It is as much the genius of Christianity to abolish
oaths as to abolish slavery. Few Englishmen
now doubt that its principles forbid the latter ;
but direct precepts apparently, as well as prin-
ciples, may be pleaded against taking an oath.
We must think, therefore, that the highest respect,
instead of bonds and imprisonment, is due to
those who, on conscientious grounds, object to
oaths. If but a scruple, it is one so perfectly
natural. It is not a mere constructive interpre-
tation of Scripture. It is, indeed, the party who
requires another to swear that has to construct a
case to make his demand even plausible in the
face of the plain prohibitions of the New Testa-
ment. At the present day, therefore, it is almost
universally felt, that punishing persons for de-
clining to swear, or refusing to accept their affirma-
tion, is a real case of religious persecution. No
Court of Justice likes to do either ; and the law is
become equally at variance with the feelings of
its administrators and the conscience of the wit-
ness. It is obvious, of course, to enlarge on the
inconsistency of permitting sects to plead con-
science in bar of oath-taking, and not permitting
individuals to do so ; but we wish rather to argue
the question on its merits, and we contend, and
we think no one can deny it, that there is a broad
prima facie case from the Bible in favour of the
most conscientious scruples against taking an oath.
The more simply, the more unconditionally, the
more reverently a man accepts the language of the
New Testament--the more likely is he to think
oaths unlawful for Christian men.
If, therefore, we retain oaths in our courts of
justice and elsewhere, we are bound by all the
principles of religious toleration, and respect for
the rights of conscience, to indulge the scruples of
those who deem them unlawful. We are hardly
less bound by the interests of justice itself. If
we succeed by penalties in compelling a person to
take an oath in violation of religious scruples, of
what value is his evidence ? We ourselves have
already sapped his conscience. We have com-
pelled him, as he conceives, to disobey his GOD,
by compelling him to appeal to his GOD; and, after
that, are we to use his testimony as evidence ? If

we do not succeed in getting him to swear, we
lose his evidence, our laws not permitting us,
except in the case of a few sects, to receive it on
the only terms on which he feels at liberty to give
it. But if, again, we give the recusant, on consci-
entious grounds, full scope, we gain every advantage.
For, in the first place, we are never compelled
to take his evidence for more than it is worth ; it
can do us no harm therefore. Next, we have the
witness before us, and have every opportunity of
judging from his aspect, manner, tone of voice,
and every little circumstance, what kind of a wit-
ness he is. Indeed, we generally, in point of
fact, rely more on the bearing of a witness, under
cross-examination especially, than on his oath ;
but, lastly, the probability is that we obtain a
witness rigidly, we might almost say morbidly,
truthful. It is but the dictate of common sense

that a person timid about violating the letter of
his LORD'S commands will be equally so about
violating truth itself. The result of the most

ready indulgence of religious scruples on this sub-
ject, therefore, is, that we can lose nothing, that

we probably gain a valuable witness, and that we

act consistently with English sentiments of Re-
ligious Liberty.
We are convinced, moreover, from numerous
remarks which we have heard, that a great many
persons, of the best character, have been so struck
. With the peculiarly direct form in which all swear-
ihnagveis fhoarbraicityden, as to be led to wish for exemption
fr
in detcakinliningcr
ham
oath,aboneneen,
a thend
of m
courseo men t . such as to warrant them
. especially at the spur of
a cons,e,iaeinutio2us,
language would be, '
This is, we
believeclassofmena. large,
a s iroiuugiab..tswe do not absolutely
d things are, seldom or never
refuse to swear, ad
mention our floating
yet on religious
grounds we should prefer not to swear:,
" whatsoever
No o: o
nn
oe
t,
we think, will deny that , as
of faith is sin," even this measure of doubt must,
on grounds of Religious Freedom, be carefully
re-
spected.
We are, of course, gratified with the turn taken
by the debate on Mr. PELLATT'S motion; and after
Mr. GLADSTONE'S assurance that the Law Commis-
sion were "dealing with the subject in a manner

that promised to be comprehensive and effectual,"
we could not wish Mr. PELLATT to press the mo-

tion to a division. And quite as gratifying was
the incident on Friday evening ; more so, indeed,
as a practical evidence of the feelings of Govern-
ment and the House on this subject. We allude
to Mr. SIDNEY HERBERT'S motion for the discharge
from custody without payment of fees, of BOWYER,
the person who declined on theological grounds to
take an oath before the Southampton Election
Committee. A motion which the Recorder of
London, Mr. S. WORTLEY, supported, with the
suggestion that it should be on cional with Courts
of Justice to exempt at their discretion any from
taking an oath. This would be a great step in
advance. The motion was quite unopposed.

THE SUN, LONDON, TUESDAY EVENING, MARCH 15, 1853.

DEATH OF GENERAL HAYNAU.

A telegraphic dispatch, dated Vienna, 14th inst., an
nounces the death of General Haynau.

ELECTION COMMITTEES-(THIS DA Y

HUDDERSFIELD.
At the meeting of the committee this morning, the
learned counsel replied on the whole case. The room was
then cleared, and on the re-admission of the parties, the
chairman read the following resolutions :
" That C. Stanfield, Esq., was not duly elected to serve
in the present Parliament for the borough of Huddersfield.
" That the last election was a void election.
" That the said C. Stanfield, Esq., had, by his agents,
been guilty of bribery and treating, but that it was not
proved to the committee that it was with the knowledge of
the said C. Stanfield, Esq."

CIRENCESTER.
The committee resumed this morning at 11 o'clock.
Mr. Merewether stated that, in consequence of the opi-
nion yesterday expressed by the committee with regard to
the agency of Cousins, and from the difficulty there would
be in establishing the other cases, from the fact of their
depending upon the evidence of hostile witnesses, he had
adopted the course of recommending to his client the with-
drawal of the petition. That recommendation had been
accepted, and he now, therefore, withdrew from further
supporting the petition.

The sitting members, therefore, retain their seats.
No application was made with regard to costs.

BANKRUPTCT COURT-(THIS DA Y).

(Before Mr. Commissioner Evans.)
IN RE CLARKE.
This bankrupt had carried on business as a nurseryman
at Chelsea, and to-day was appointed for consideration of
his certificate.
Mr. Lucas appeared as counsel to oppose on behalf of
creditors.
Mr. R. Chidley Gresham-street,' appeared as solicitor to
the assignees, and said he was taken by surprise at the op-
position, for he had not had any notice.
Mr. Lucas then applied for an adjournment, that the
proper notice might be given, and quoted cases in support
of his application.
His Honour granted the application at the costs of the
creditors.