The Sun.
London, England, 1853-06-28 00:00:00

LONDON, TUESDAY, JUNE 23, 1853.

Can Lord JOIIN RUSSELL spare but a crumb
from his Liberal Table to the advocates of Free
Voting ? Liverpool has just fallen from it. Can
he permit Lord DUDLEY STUART to pick it up ?
Can he allow that the favourite scheme of a BEN-
THAM and a GROTE may really be worth a fair
trial or 'two ? Does he conceive it just possible
that a first-rate philosopher, a first-rate historian,
a fellow Cabinet Minister, some half-score of his
• brother Ministers, and a declared majority of his
own Liberal supporters, may be for once right ?
Can a Whig leader be fallible in just one single
case ? If so, in compassion to the tens of
thousands of Reformers who hunger and thirst
for the Ballot, let his Lordship suppose that he
may be the subject of human infirmity in his
present opposition to it, and let him concede one
trial of its merits in this large and largely-
bribed constituency. He may allege that
an Act of Parliament will be necessary.
A very short one would do. But where
there is a will, there is a way. Why, even a jour-
nal notoriously favourable to his Lordship and
the present Government, has painted strongly the
advantage of giving the rival schemes of the
Edinbuirgh Review and the Ballot, a trial at bye
elections before the Grand Year of Reform, 1854.
There is literally not a single argument against
Lord D. STUART'S motion to take the next poll at
Liverpool by the Ballot but that of obstinacy.
But one trial is asked for ; asked for when the
need of something of the kind is proved; asked for
in the name of the first men of the age, and the
majority of the Liberals ; asked for as a means
of testing in a few fairly chosen instances
a plan deemed highly valuable by a most
important part of the community, who are
content to abide the issue of a fair trial. What
argument but dogged obstinacy is there to oppose
this ? If the experiment fail, the opponents will
be the gainers ; their theoretical objections will
be corroborated by facts. If it succeed, they,
professing to be candid legislators, will be
thankful for the lesson. There can bo no
danger of creating bad precedents ; the con-
cession can only become a precedent by its suc-
cess. No arguments for the Ballot itself aro
needed in the present case. It cannot be denied
that a few trials before 1854 are possible ; that it
is easy to make them. It cannot be denied that
the number and characters of the parties asking
for the trial are an ample prinic2 facie case in its
favour. What, then, need stand in the way of the
experiment ? It cannot be pretended that, like
the repeal of the Corn Laws or of Catholic Disa-
bilities, it is impossible to be tested locally, or
to be stayed at once if unsuccessful. We do,
therefore, put it to the Leader of the House of
Commons whether he cannot unbend or relax for
once ; and as he tolerates one advocate of the
Ballot even in the Cabinet, whether he cannot
also tolerate the Ballot itself in one of the long
list of boroughs whose elections have been proved
not to be immaculate ? One election by Ballot is
no unfair proportion to one Cabinet Minister, with
fair accompaniment too of ex-Cabinet Ministers. It
is quite plain that the two thousand old freemen at
Liverpool will never become SIDNEYS and
ELLiorrs, as Lord JOHN hopes, on the present
plan
their " trusteeship" at five shillings per head and
a gallon or two of beer. Will Lord JOHN pre-
tend that such "trustees for the public" care more
for the public than they do for their shillings and
their beer? Or will he deny that voting, so that
it were worth no one's while to give them
and beer, would be money
a better moral and consti-
tutional discipline for them than to be plied with
those temptations ? If the reasonableness of a
case could avail to impart but a touch of genial
sympathy with his supporters to the " Last of
the Whigs," it would do more to prolong the last
hours of the party than even the genius cf
MACAULAY itself. It will be, indeed, an agree-
able surprise, if, on this question, we are nct
again met with technicalities and sneers.

The debate on India is beginning to attract
some degree of notice. The contest is becoming
wore arduous. Some of the leading Members on
either side of the House have taken part in the

proceedings, and have succeeded in obtaining a
more numerous and attentive audience than the
earlier speakers ; and as the result becomes more
doubtful, a deeper interest is excited. Mr. COB-
DEN last night made a vigorous and most effective
attack on the measure, bringing forward a num-
ber of facts in support of his views, and reasoning
thereon with a degree of power and energy
that reminded us of his most successful
efforts during the Anti-corn-law agitation.
The Honourable Gentleman is indeed a dangerous
opponent to a, proposition intrinsically bad ; and
more especially so if it in any degree savours of a
job, sacrificing the welfare and happiness of the
many to the selfish objects of a clique or party.
He has, we rejoice to find, entered heart and soul
into the Indian question, and we are convinced
that he will not relinquish his exertions until he
has brought the issue to an auspicious termina-
tion. We care not what may be his object ;
whether he be solely influenced by a high-minded
philanthropy, looking for his reward solely to the in-
creased comforts, the additional happiness to be con-

ferred upon so numerous a proportion of the human

family, or whether, as his enemies allege, his only
desire is to increase the cultivation of Cotton in
Hindostan, and thus to enable the men of Man-
chester to obtain their staple commodity some
cents. per pound cheaper. Self-interest is not the
least powerful motive that actuates the human
mind, and we cannot forget that the same charge
was preferred against the Hon. Gentleman and his
coadjutors during the struggle for untaxed bread ;
but the sneer did not render their efforts less zea-
lous or efficient, nor did it retard their triumph,
or render its consequences less beneficial to the
community at large.

Mr. COBDEN was peculiarly qualified to form a
sound and accurate opinion on the subject under
'discussion. He had served on the Committee ap-
pointed to inquire into the Government of the
Anglo-Indian Empire, and could, therefore, speak
authoritatively both as to its Constitution and the
proceedings that had taken place before it, and his
opinion was very briefly, but very decisively, ex-
pressed. He declared that "its conduct was not
such as to entitle it to be cited as an authority,
or to inspire any great degree of confidence."
The inquiry had been divided into eight heads,
and on one only—that as to the machinery by
which the Government of India was carried on—was
there any expression of opinion. Eighteen witnesses
had been examined ; "every one of whom had been
officially in the employment of the Court of .Direc-
tors or of the Board of Control, or had been in some
manner connected with one or other of those ser-
vices." tlt was upon such very disinterested testi-
mony that the Committee came to the qualified
resolutions upon which such stress has been laid,
and from which two of its members unequivocally
dissented. Under such circumstances, we can
scarcely feel surprised at the contemptuous disre-
gard for their labours exhibited by the President
of the India Board and his colleagues. Much
doubt could not have been entertained as

to the nature of the final report by parties
who took care to exclude independent testimony,
and who could only give a hearing to one side of
the case. Sir CHARLES WOOD—who had long
since expressed his views as to the proceedings of
such Committees, declaring that no Minister
should consent to a reference unless certain of
the constitution •of the Committee, and of. the
report that would eventually be made even before
its appointment—was therefore justified in totally
disregarding the proceedings, or at least only iu
making use of them so' far as suited his own pur-
poses ; and Mr...CODDEN only evinced a due re-
gard for his own character in refusing to
devote his time and labour to an investigation
where it must have been manifest to every one
that " the whole case was prejudged, and that a
verdict had been brought in without going through
the preliminaries.of a trial."

But limited and partial as was the inquiry, it
yet threw some light on that extraordinary myth,
the Government of India, but which, like the
flashing of a torch at the entrance of a deep
cavern, only serves to render the prevailing ob-
scurity more profound. The Honourable Gentle-
man denies that there is a double- Government,
and asserts that, " under the Charter Act, with
the exception of the disposal of patronage, there
was no power granted to them by the Statute."
lie adduces many cogent reasons in support of this
opinion, and, among others, refers to the evidence
of Lord HARDING; who styled the Government "a
mystery," citing the case of an officer of high rank,
who, complaining to the Secret Committee of the
Directors, discovered that that all powerful
and mysterious body meant neither more nor less
than the President of the Board of 'Control.

All this complicated and worse than useless
machinery is to be maintained simply for the
sake of vesting the patronage of the Indian
empire, or rather the selection of the objects
among whom that patronage is to be distributed,
in twenty-four gentlemen selected by the
holders of stock to the value of six mil-
' lions sterling, who, not satisfied with obtaining
ten and a-half per cent. per annum, granted
for twenty years, and then only redeemable on
payment of 2001. for every 1001. originally in-
vested, are desirous of obtaining valuable appoint-
ments in return for their disinterested suffrages in
the election of the Directors, whom ,the Honour-
able Gentleman has appropriately termed the
" JOHN DOE" and " RICHARD ROE" of India.
Surely the holders of SOuth Sea Stock, of 3 per
Cents. Reduced,' and of Consols, may well com-
plain of the undue favouritism, and wonder why
they themselves are debarred from a share in
these comfortable pickings that have hitherto
been monopolised by the East India proprietors.
But, cui Bono, what is the object or utility of
maintaining this gigantic fiction, and creating the
strong and reasonable impression in the minds of
the inhabitants that they have been " farmed
out" to contractors for the purpose of having
the largest amount practicable extracted from their
thews and sinews. It cannot be merely to get
rid of the, patronage, to transfer those desirable
and lucrative appointments , from the Crown to
other hands. Ministers, more especially Whig
Ministers, have seldom been so very sensitive on
such a point, unless strangely calumniated ;
they have been more inclined to make
places for anxious friends than of refusing
to distribute situations to which they had legi-
timate rights of nomination. We must en-
deavour, then, to discover the mystery in some
other quarter. May it not be for the preserva-
tion of that mystery so justly complained of, and
which enables them to shift the responsibility of
impolitic acts from person to person, until none
cari be called to account ? Inconvenient discus-
sions are thus diverted, while the concealed
Mogul pulls the wires and sets the various puppets
in motion. This may be very desirable for Sir
CHARLES WOOD, but it will not xeceive the sanction
of Great Britain or of Hindostan.

Notwithstanding the distinct and positive pro-
mise of Lord JOHN RUSSELL, to the effect that
measures would be taken to carry the recommen-
dations of the Common Law Commissioners into
practical operation without delay, we fear that
there is but little prospect of accomplishing an
object in every respect so desirable during the pre-'
sent Session. We have now arrived at the end
of June, a month only remains for the work of
legislation, and there are so many matters having
the priority of claim—and which, indeed, cannot
be postponed—standing over, that we are obliged,
reluctantly, to relinquish the hope of making.
much further progress in the path of legal re-
forms before the prorogation. One step has,
however, been taken in accord:oce with the re-
commendation of the Commissioners. The E% i-
dence Amendment Bill was read a second time on
Friday, without opposition, and although it only
applies to a small portion of the matters referred
to in the Report of the Learned Gentlemen, it will
still be hailed as a valuable improvement in the
auannidration of the Law.
It is possible that the delay, in some respects
llir
so much to be regretted, may eventually be turned
o einTE
goo good purpose. The Commissioners will have
ppsmE
ortmi, ity of observing the working of Mr.
I s Bill in the sister kingdom, and of
reconsidering their decision with respect to the
verification of pleadings by the peorties after

1111111/11/1d