NEWS OF THE WEEK.
AscoT races have not interrupted the progress of important busi- ness in Parliament ; although they have contributed, with the saturnalia of the Oxford Commemoration, to augment the incen- tives to holydaymaldng which have been so concentrated on the threshold of Summer. The Income-tax Bill has been passed by the House of Commons without any real alteration from the fussy Opposition ; and if there are certain Peers who will find it neces- sary to vent their wisdom upon the measure, its ultimate fate is as sure as anything sublunary. It is not likely to meet with more difficulty than the little Hackney Carriages Bill, which is smoothly pursuing its course on the quiet surface of the upper waters. If there was "no House" on one night of the week, perhaps business was facilitated rather than hindered; since the debates that were to have been opened on that night might have been adjourned,— an infliction bad enough when substantial things are in question.
The grand topic of debate and of public notice has been the scheme for renewing and amending the government of India ; which has gone through the preliminary stage of obtaininc leave to bring in a bill. The debate upon it has been singular in cha- racter : to a certain extent it may be said that all the speeches upon it have been inapposite, and that the y of the debate
hate has tanned upon other thiw... -Sa 67>wles-.W,s&w.a his very clear and sufficient explanation of the measure,—if indeed the bill prove to make good Sir Charles's own description,— with a preface which exceeded the body of his statement; a preface consisting of a voluminous apology for the past ad- ministration of India, which was all passed in review and painted in colours as brilliant as those selected by a second- rate scene-painter. Much that Sir Charles Wood said in this huge apology, such as his representing that the English Govern- ment of India had been really beneficial, was quite true ; but when, among things accomplished, he mentioned the suppression of " amity," yet failed to recognize fully the vast waste of op- portunity on the part of the Company, or made light of the prac- tical inconveniences arising from its ill-constructed machinery, he challenged contradictions which encumbered rather than for- warded the discussion of the project. The example he set was followed by all the speakers. The measure proposed was scarcely debated at all ; but there was a copious accompaniment-debate upon matters that were scarcely in question. Mr. john Bright immediately followed, with attacks upon the Board of Control, the Government, and the administrators of India down to the present time ; much of it true, much of it too highly coloured; but, ex- cept his complaint that the .bill did not sweep all this away and begin de novo, his slashing speech had little reference to the proposition which had been laid before the House. Mr. Phil/ more showed, with great elaboration, how the system hitherto maintained in India has worked to the injury of the Natives, and of the largest interests at stake in that empire ; Mr. Blackett proved beyond refutation that the Company has governed neither wisely nor too well, and that its advocates were disingenuous ; Mr.'Danby Seymour showed that authorities which had been quoted in favour of the Company, or of the past system, had been garbled : but all this had little to do with the proper subject of debate. Mr. Hume was perhaps the most useful speaker for the Ministers, since he showed that the Company has not been altogether so vile as it is painted ; but his speech was simply an outpouring of an old gentleman's view of what his been; and when we cite his praise of the Directors for not " going into expenses," or his grand charge against the proposed bill, that it will appoint Directors at only 4001. or 5001. a.year to be masters of servants who are paid 30001. a year, we sufficiently exemplify the tests which he brought to bear upon a great act of statesmanship. Sir James Weir Hogg appeared as senior counsel for the Company; and his speech produced a considerable effect upon the House, —a fact which we regret, since it proves the low standard of judgment in that assembly. Sir James concluded his oration by a solemn appeal to " the Disposer of Events " ; the speech which led to that appeal being a tissue of undisputed commonplaces, irrelevant 're- joinders, and special pleadings inverting the truth. For instance, he asserted that the ryot in India pays a " fixed rent," and that the annual revision is " easily explained "; though every tyro knows that the annual revision practically assesses rent below the nominal " fixed rent," and in some districts extorts for each little holding a rackrent. He quoted passages from books on India, di- vorced from contexts that gave the true application of the text. This had nothing to do with the Government project ; and in fine, leave was given to bring in the bill on the statement of Sir Charles Wood, with very little of apposite debate. The gordian knot of the Irish embroglio in the Government has been cut by Lord Aberdeen ; who replied to Mr. Monsell's letter of resignation, as the sequel to Lord John Russell's speech on the Roman Catholics in Ireland, by an expression of "concern" at that resignation, and by an explicit avowal that the sentiments of which Mr. Monsell complained were not shared by Lord Aber- deen or by many of his colleagues. On this assurance, Mr. Mon.- sell, Mr. Keogh, and Mr. Sadleir withdrew their resignation ; and they remain in office. Losing the members who seemed about to be cast adrift for recovery, the Irish Brigade endeavoured to make the most of the apparent division in the Cabinet; and Mr. George Moore tried to cross-examine Lord John Russell upon the statistics of the members who hold or do not hold the sentiments of Lord John : but he was put off with a goodhumoured ebnfessieil that Lord John was unable to answer the question. Lord John "fell back upon Lord Melbourne's " sensible opinion," " that it was'quite suffi- cient that members of the Government should agree in the course they pursue, and that it was not at all necessary they should agree in all the reasons which induced them to adopt that course." Lord Aberdeen's letter has been regarded as a disavowal of Lord John Russell somewhat humiliating to that statesman : but we see no good reason to regard it in that light. The present Government consists of mdn who, for their rank and standing, must be allowed an unusual freedom of individuality in their sentiments ; it is sel- dom that the "subordinate " offices, as Lord -Derby -.called them, are filled by first-rate men, as they are in 'this collective diffiffiet. But it was a Cabinet constructed on- the princir:le of merging individual opinions in a combined course of pad- tical action. However high, therefore, the individual mem- bers may be in rank or standing, the Cabinet itself is still higher.. Whatever may be the position of the members, the position of the Cabinet is a separate and more important matter. The Cabinet will in history be judged by its work, and not by its words. Part of its success depends upon the unswerving directness of its course and the unmistakeable frankness of its conduct. The difference respecting the Irish Roman Catholic Members was an accident, and it was sound statesmanship which would not permit that acci- dent to cause the slightest diversion in the practical course of the Ministry. In order to insure success, it was necessary to prevent that course from being misunderstood even for a time, and we regard Lord Aberdeen's declaration as the declaration of the Cabinet for those purposes and in that sense.
