The Sun.
London, England, 1858-04-06 00:00:00

THE SUN, LONDON, TUESDAY EVEN 1 NG, APRIL 6, 1868.

jority of honourable members ' • and, secondly, on
account of its greater simplicity as compared with
the competing Bill. Now, respecting the first of
these allegations, we can only say that it rests upon
a most violent and untenable assumption. The
division in which the house, by a majority of 150,
passed the first reading of Lord Palmerston's Bill
by no means expressed any approval of the scheme
it contained, or even of the principles on which it
was founded. How, indeed, was it possible for the
Legislature either to approve or condemn a measure
which they had not seen, upon such loose data as
could be collected on the spot from the ministerial
exposition of its provisions, and without time for
any deliberate consideration? On this very ground
it has become an accepted canon of Parliamentary
usage, that no vote on a motion for leave to bring
in any Bill shall pledge either the house collectively
or members individually, as to their course with
respect to its subsequent stages. Nor did the
terms of the question, on which Lord Palmerston
took " the sense of the house" when first laying
his measure before the Commons, imply an opinion
of any sort us to its merits. The division took
place on Mr. Baring's amendment declaring that
the time was unfit for legislation on the subject.
The majority, whereof the ex-Premier's supporters
make so much, decided no other issue than that of
time. It was then ruled—so far as a single vote
could determine anyquestion so important aud com-
plicated—that some new system of Indian adminis-
tration should forthwith beorganised. This decision
was recognised by Mr. Disrael i as having prompted—
it might almost be said compelled—the present
Ministers to undertake the task of framing a bill
for that purpose. But as regards the selection of
any particular system or proposition for effecting
the object in view, the House was left altogether
unfettered ; and the so-much talked of " majority"
could be as justly claimed by Lord Ellenborough
in support of Bill No. 2, as by Lord Palmerston
in approval of Bill No. I. These considerations
are so obvious that we should not have ventured to
recapitulate them were it not that we find the ex-
Ministerial organs still dwelling upon the argu-
ment, that the House has actually committed itself
to a formal sanction of the Palmerstouian measure.

The second allegation, that of " simplicity," is
more feasible. But the superior merits thus im-
parted to the Bill No. 1, would be far better ap-
preciated by the Ministers of a despotic Sovereign
than the subjects of a free State. Lord Palmer-
ston's proposed " Council of Eight," all nominated
by the Crown, is, no doubt, much more simple in
construction than a body of eighteen members, all
of whom must possess certain qualifications, while
half of their number are to be elected by popular
constituencies, variously composed, and differing
considerably as to their numbers and condition.
Just in the same manner must we allow that a
sheer despotism is more simple than any form of
constitutional government. There may be coun-
tries where this quality would be recognised as con-
ferring an incontestible superiority. We do nor,
however, Fuspect that it Will obtain very extensive
approval in the British House of Commons.
It seems to be understood on all sides that the
"trial point" between the two Bills will lie in their
respective schemes for the composition, of a Council.
for India. Oth-r provisions relate either to prin-
ciples on which every one is agreed—qich, for ex-
ample, as the appointment of a fourth Secretary of
State for the Administration of Indian 'Affairs, with
his official staff and parliamentary responsibilities
or else to details which may be altogether left for
determination by the House itself, when the clauses
of the accepted measure are debated in committee.
We are required, therefore, to examine, as the
House will have hereaf er to discuss, not merely
the original coes'itution, but also the subsequent
functions and powers of this Council. When the
framers of the Bills have got their respective
Councils, what do they propose to make of them ?
Here we find the real distinction between the two
propositions. Lard Palmerston, when suggesting
a body of only eight nominated members, evidently
contemplatLs converting it into a mere " Board."
The Council for India, under this system, would
belong to the same class of adtniuistrative function-
aries as the Board of Admiralty, the Junior Lords
of the Treasury, or the chiefs of Departments in the
Colonial-office. The so-called Councilors wouli
degenerate into mere Commissioners—differing
from the officials above-mentioned only in the
circumstance, that as they were forbid to sit in the
House of Commons, they could never be subjected
to inconvenient cross-examinations ; and as re-
tiring from office at certain prescribed intervals,
they would always be induced to consult the varying
aspects of the political barom -ter, so as to secure
re-appointment at the end of their term, rather than
address themselves independently and consistently
to promote the well-being of our Indian Empire.
With a Council thus organised, where would be the
check on the Mtnister, or the responsibility to
Parliament Who knows now, or knowing, could
alter the proceedings of the Treasury, the Admir-
alty, or any matter of pracical detail ? Certainly
not the House of Commons. Assailed on such
points, the Minister is always able either to elude
the difficulty, or to involve the question in such a
cloud of official mystsry as to baffle the most per-
severing pursuit. Some curious carrespondence
has, indeed, been lately published respecting the
competitive plans for the construction of new public
offices, showing that between two departments of
the same Administration " my Lords" were able to
defy the power and ignore the remonstrances even
of a.Chief Commissioner of Works, Such, and
worse, would be the position of Lord Palmerston's
eight Councillors, since they would enjoy more com-
plete shelter from parliamentary interference, and
at the same time be more subject to political in-

fluences.
In the Council of Eighteen, proposed by Lord
Ellenborough, a very different principle is recog
nixed. From its mere magnitude this body would
exercise a far higher degree of influence over the
Minister of the day. But, in addition to their
personal imporance, nine members being elective,
would wield the power conferred on them by their
cnnstituencieg. This is a distinction whose value,
we may add, does not depend on the actual num-
ber or prescribed qualification of the constituent
body. It is a difference of kind rather than degrw...
A. councillor nominated by the Crown has abso-
lutely no right even to remonstrate should his
opinions be overset by an autocratic dictum from
the Minister of the Crown. Where can he appeal
—since the same power to which he owes his own
appointment has also set a superior over his bead ?
But an elected Councillor, under such circumstances,
appeals to his constituents, be they many or few ;
and, through his constituents, to public opinian.
This is the principle ou which Lord Ellenborough's
bill claims an essential pre-eminence over Lord
Palmerston's scheme. The particular mode in
which, or the electoral body by which, the nine
members of Council shall be chosen, are matters
for future consideration. The Government have
pretty plainly intimated their perfect readiness to
accept any modification in the proposed measure
which the how() might think proper to indicate.
In this deference to the opinion of Parliament, 114:r
Majesty's Minister's cannot-be charged with tres-
passing on the boundaries of official consistency.
Supposing, for instance, that it should be texpedieut
to abandon the proposal for electing five members
of Council by the 101. householders of five cities
and towns, the change thus oocasioned would he
far less important than that introduced into the
Reform Act by the celebrated " °hairdos Clause,"
which the framers of that measure nevertheless
felt it quite withintheir competenceto adopt rather
than sure ender their bill or resign their offices.

THE AUSTRALIAN POSTAL SERVICE.—A return show-
lug the time occupied by the Australian mail steamers in
their voyage out and home has been printed, on the
motion of Mr. Macartney, M.P. In the Suez and
Sydney services there are five steamers of 1,538 to
2,754 tons, and of 300 to 750 horse-p )wer. Twe—the
Emeu and the Simla —arechartered. To the Oneida new
machinery is being fitted ; and the Tasmania is prepar-
ing for sea (not yet surveyed by the Admiralty). Last
year it appears that the Emeu was four days behind
tines on the voyage out (penalty 5001.) The Eke and
European (which divided the voyage between South-
ampton and Alex'iudria an Suez and Sydney) so
managed as to leave a default of nearly nine days, for
which 1,8001. penalty was lvied. The Tamar and Colum-
bian were, in the same w?y, seven days in arrear on
the whole of the outward voyage, and 1,4001, was the
fine imposed. In the joint voyage of the Jura and Simla
14 day was saved, and a premium of :30/. was paid ; on
the home voyages from Sydney there were two failures ;
in one, where 11 days were lost, 3,3001. was imposed ;
and iu another, although the voyage was peel need two
days within the time, 2001. was abated from the contract
as penalty, in consequence of a delay at Alexandria.
In two other cases there was an excess of five days
and one day, hut the penalties will not be deduced
until the next quarterly payment. In the case of the
failure cf the mill from Suez to Sydney by the acci-
dent to the Erneu, the penalty will ba deducted in
t'.e same way. A correqcondopoe follow between tee
European and Australian Mail Company, the Royal
Steampacket Cempa,ny, and the •Government of
her Makety, in reference to the arn4eernaeion of t'a)
said companies, and for the future performance of mail
services to and from Australia, the West L dies, and
South America. The Royal Mail Company apprised the
Admiralty on the 14th Jan. last that they bad acceeted
tenders for two paddlewheel steamers of iron, of 3,090
tons and 800 horse-power; and for a third eteather of
the same power and size, all of which they hoped to
have ready for sea in twenty months from the date f
the contract will the Government; these steamers are
for the. West ledia Transatlantic mail service. One
iron steamer of 1,000 tons and 250 horse-power is to les
built by the same company for the mail service betWeee
Rio de Janeiro and the. River Plate.. The contract of the
Royal Mail Company has been extended to the let f
January, 1864, and the acceleration of the Brazil rout
is to commence on the 9th of May ensuing. A copy ( f
a supplemental contract in November, 1857, relative to
i he Australian mails is also printed.