The Sun.
London, England, 1853-08-18 00:00:00

without meaning to impute, even to Sir
CHARLES WOOD, a manoeuvre so exceed-
ingly discreditable as the adoption of such
a mode of getting rid of a formidable opposition
on any important topic, we must express our re-
aret that such a question should have been thus
disposed of, and that so very powe 1111 an illustra-
tion should have been afforded of " the shame-
ful apathy and indifference of Great Britain to
the concerns of India," and also of the evil re-
sults of hasty legislation at the fag end of a ses-
sion.

What can the natives of India think of the
course adopted towards them by the Government
and the Parliament of the United Kingdom ?
They find their complaints, couched in the most
moderate and temperate language, totally disre-
garded—their humble application that an oppor-
tunity might be afforded of substantiating 'the
facts they had put forward, contemptuously re-
jected. They see a reckless determination to pe2-
petrate a monstrous job, at their expense, as
recklessly carried into practical operation, that
notwithstanding the pendency of inquiries before
Committees of both Houses of Parliament, a
crude and ill-digested measure pressed forward.
Introduced only in the month of June, it was
permitted to supersede more urgent propositions.
Legal reforms, ecclesiastical court reforms—the
amelioration of the landlord and tenant code in
Ireland—of the Savings' Banks laws in the
United Kingdom—sanitary measures. Eve :y-
-thing, in fact, requiring dispatch is postponed ;
while that alone in which delay woul.d be benefi-
cial, was pressed at railroad speed through both
Houses. On other subjects nothing but procrastina-
tion was perceptible ; and that although they had
many months' priority over the only matter on
which temporary legislation was desirable. On
that an abdication of its functions by the heredi-
tary branch of the Legislature, because " not one-
fifth of their Lordships could, or wou'.d, be induced
to assemble in the month of August, on even the
most important question of the Session." An
unconditional acceptance of the bill, although five
others which had received far greater considera-
tion were postponed to another Session, to suit
the convenience of the pleasure-seeking nobility,
who could not, or would not, attend at such a
season. "An unconditional acceptance," we
said—would that it had been so. Its only bene-
ficial feature—the only redeeming point that
might have contented the sufferers—was expunged
without a division ; and when the matter was
returned to the other House, we find that, not-
withstanding the violation of its privileges, the
amendment is accepted. And why ? Because the
House sits at an unusual hour, and no sufficient
intimation of the change is given to the few who
remain in town. And also, as Sir JOHN PARING-
TON acknowledges, that the popular Representatives
emulate the insouceance of their titled brethren,
or, to use his own words, " because, and only
because, at this period of the session, and looking
to the attendance of Members, no division on
such a subject could now be considered as a test
of the opinion of the House of Commons !" Is
this the mode by which we hope to gain the affec-
tionate respect, to cement the allegiance of Hindoo
subjects of Queen VICTORIA ? Can legislation
thus obtained be considered in any degree satis-
factory or permanent ? Certainly not. The
seeds have been sown that must produce an
abundant crop of future agitation—of agitation
that will never be relaxed until some degree of
ustice be rendered to the much-aggrieved inhabi-
ants of India.

The great majority of our readers will have
read, we doubt not, with the greatest pleasure, in
our paper of Saturday, the result of the appeal
in the Braintree case to the House of Lords.
Stript of all legal phraseology, the judgment of
the House of Lords is, that a minority in a vestry
meeting cannot lay a Church Rate. It is a deci-
sion worthy of the House, which, no Radical Re-
former even can deny, has so often proved itself
conservative of our legal liberties. Had the
Lords decided as carefully upon the merits of the
India Bill as they did upon those of the Brain-
tree case, we should not have had to revive, as
we did the other day, the question, " What is the
use of the House of Lords ?" Into this case Lord
TRURO entered most fully and minutely, even
showed his j udgment to the absent Lord BROUGHAM,
and the result was a verdict which the vast ma-
jority of Englishmen will applaud, which the
House itself can be proud to record on its jour-
nals, and which, if the opposite party are not
infatuated, will be the termination of this 15
years' litigation.
The Braintree case is one of no ordinary im-
portance. It was instituted not merely to enforce
a claim on Dissenters, which, as Lord STANLEY,
in his able and candid letter, shows, is now consi-
dered odious and unjust by all fair-minded Church-
men, as well as it is by Dissenters themselves.
The distinguishing feature of this case is, that it
was raised to try the question, whether a
minority of a parish meeting could lay a
church-rate, if the majority refused to do
so ; a question which appears more like a
joke than a serious legal difficulty to Englishmen
unlearned in the law. Its being made, however,
a grave legal question, and one or two abortive
attempts, as at Bradford in Yorkshire, having
been made to collect rates laid by a minority,
saber men have been waiting with a kind of half-
credulous curiosity to know whether law was
really in such absurd conflict with common sense
and the universal habits o: the country. It is so
engrained into an Englishman's notions of all
matters in which we meet, discuss, and vote, that
a majority shall decide, and a minority yield with
the best grace it can, that the opposite idea is
quite a shock to all his notions of law and order.
His voluntary societies of every kind, h;s parish
meetings, his municipal proceedings, his elections
for Parliament, the very Houses of Legislature
themselves, all act upon one and the same prin-
ciple ; and, let it be observed, the circumstance
that enables our country to carry out so admir-
ably the principles of constitutional government,
is, that in England minorities know the':4-
On the Continent they do not. They cannot there
be content to work their way to a majority by
discussion, and fair political means ; what they
cannot carry by votes they must carry by violence
or fraud. An Englishman beaten, on the con-
trary, folds his arms, thinks his time will come,
and prepares resolutely for another contest of
votes. Nothing could do us more injury than to
make any inroad on this grand essential to public
good fellowship. It seems characteristic of our
race, having been noticed with interest and ap-
probation by intelligent foreigners in America as
well as in this country. They have been
astonished to see parties so excited before an elec-
tion for an M.P. or a President, yet as quiet as
ever when the poll or the Ballot-box had an-
' nounced the result. It is all due to minorities

knowing their part. Now, the BRAINTREE case
was, in the judgment of the community generally,
an attempt to annihilate the very principle of all
our public action, and to give to a minority the
rights of the majority. An attempt almost revo-
lutionary in its nature, to compass by force of
legal chicanery what could not be attained by fair
and manly means ; and very small indeed, we
suspect, is the party in the Church of England,
almost limited perhaps to officials themselves, who
do not thoroughly concur in the judgment just
given by the Lords. It is, then, as upholding in
its integrity the grand English principle of govern-
ing by real majorities that we rejoice in this consti-
tutional decision, and the House of Lords, as a
Court of Appeal, has added to the respect in which
on that ground it is justly held by all who prize
to the Courtte
our most valuable constitutional principles. No
act of the Session will tell more in its favour.
It appears, from the statement of Dr.
the zeal of the
LusruN,Tow
quoted by Lord STANLEY (page
27), that ll case may yet be taken back
we do not as of,, Arches, and thence to the
Judicial Comm' of Privy Council. Whether
1 tilld
a nbleys:adcelis,
he
e)y
yet ifc,anc,s wil carry them thus far
do,now. lt will. be for mere an-
noyance if
minds
ofas the question is quite de-
cided,judgm einntt;haet
nh
deyLord STANLEY will be certain now
alt hi. ebut presentcar-
to carry next year the
. tied this. When the
general policy of upright