The Sun.
London, England, 1857-10-24 00:00:00

HIGH WATER AT LONDON BRIDGE.

THIS DAY- Morn. 7 min. aft. 5 —Even. 27 ra'n aft. 5
TO-MORROW —Moin. 47 min. aft. 5 —Even. 12 min. aft. 6

TUB -SON OFFICE, OCTOBER 24
THEUMOMETEE, IN THE STLIDE.
I?—highest since noon yesterday.
50—lowest this morning and during the night
60 —this day at noon.

BA.RON =En, 30.15.
WIND, Easterly; rather fresh, with fine weather.

, ..,........
~,....„,
~.._
.
f-lk: f-... 4?-1.,.. • Alit,
L, I.e f....,z. ~......
r Fk.,,,_ , .:.- : s,•

LONDON, SATURDAY, OCT. 24, 1857.

The British inhabitants of Calcutta have peti-
tioned against the Anglo-Indian Government.
They accuse it of weakness, vacillation, almost
imbecility, state that its sole object is to unduly
favour the Civil Service, as if India was to be
retained for their exclusive benefit. They have
gone to the very root of the matter, urged a truly
radical reform of the existing system, asking that
the British Parliament should remove the Go-
vernment of the East India Company, and sub-
stitute that of the QcrEra, with an open Legisla
tive Council, suitable to the requirements of the
.country, compatible with British supremacy,
Queen's Courts, presided over by trained lawyers,
and English the Court language—and, in fact, to
sweep away the present mal-administration of
justice either by a number of incompetent men
of an exclusive service, or by crowds of natives
unfit in times of peace, and frequently traitorous
in times like the present.
The Government have now retorted by a tu,
quoque argument. They make a sweeping accu-
sation against the state of public feeling in Calcutta
—or in other words, against those who had the
manliness to annex their names to the inculpatory
statement. It, in public opinion, is described as
" savage and vindictive—a blind and indiscrimi-
nating exasperation—a mere hatred of a dark
skin—a 'pure, and unreasoning antipathy to the
Hindoo." This is the cross-bill of indictment. It
is an attempt to carry the war into the enemy's
camp, to retort the charges preferred. Their own
defence is grounded on the illiberal and also im-
politic prejudices of their accusers, who are nct
competent to take a fair and disinterested view of
the all-important question.
These are the conflicting charges, and it is for
the Parliament and People of Great Bri-
tain to decide the points now at issue on
both sides. It appears to us that all the
'Presumptions are in favour of the inhabitants.
Such an accusation as " indiscriminate hatred"
was never hitherto preferred against any body of
Englishmen uninfluenced by official ties. Nor
was it preferred nubl they had previously spoken
out, plainly and
intelligibly, against the fatuity
that had seriously imperilled, and, if persevered
in, might eventually destroy the British supre-
macy in Hindostan. The press was gagged—no
complaints could be preferred throuh the
columns of an independent journal. Theprecau,
tion might have been necessary so far as the na_
tive newspapers were concerned—those pritited
in any of the Eastern languages, or edited-by
Illahommedans or Hindoos. But it was unfair
and uncalled for against Englishmen who had
invested their capital in Indian journals, and who
bed heavy stakes in the maintenance of British
supremacy in the East. Although they might
disagree with Government measures, they would
sustain and support the Government itself. They
could not be with
supposed to sympathise
the views or opinions of the mutineers and
rebels, and the attempt at gagging the Fourth
Estate, proved not only that the Government WE
in the wrong, but that it was well aware of the