1 MAY 1858, Page 16

THE RESOLUTIONS AND THE BILLS.

OBSTINACY and incompetency are related qualities. This is true of Parliamentary assemblies and of individuals alike. But the

House of Commons might plead a peculiar excuse for persisting in the attempt to legislate on India, after events have proved to the general public that legislation for the present is impossible. For the leaders of all parties have conspired to hurry Parliament into the adoption of some scheme, and have contrived, with no small skill, to make the Legislature the reflex and exponent of their own

egotistic wilfulness in this matter. Disinterested and thinking men came to the conclusion, on the instant of Lord Palmerston's fall, that the grave Ministerial question which that event raised, affecting the whole moral action of our Parliamentary government, and involving most delicate issues of a party, personal and con- stitutional nature absolutely disqualified Parliament for the task of reconstructing the government of India. We believe this view of the subject to be really cardinal. How could it be possible for a legislative assembly, diseased in its most vitally organic part, the relation of its leaders to the majority, and with the cry from all quarters ringing in its ears "Physician, heal thyself! "to pro- ceed, as though In the full flush of health and strength, to so pro- foundly important a task as creating an Indian government ? The idea is preposterous : and that it should be entertained in quarters of authority is a lamentable proof, if any were needed, that the ranch boasted practical talent of Englishmen is sus- ceptible of a total eclipse under the temptations of party and passion. There is weight, certainly, in the argument, that Par- liament having resolved that a bill for the abolition of the Com- pany should be brought in, discredit was cast on its government and another must be substituted. But there is greater weight by far in the counter-argument, that while Parliament is in its pre- sent state no measure of reconstruction can carry with it the prestige, and bear the stamp of the thoughtful, unprejudiced, and reflective mind of the Legislature. But the opinion is not fortified by speculative considerations merely. We have had two bills and substantially two sets of re- solutions, and a two months period of passionate competition upon the subject, before reaching the decisive stages of Parliamentary discussion. We have seen the typical suggestions which leading statesmen can afford as the basis for framing the proposed go- vernment, and heard the arguments in their support. And there is a painful air of irresponsibility about the whole proceed- ings; an incoherence' sometimes amounting very nearly to silli- ness in the arguments ; and, defects of the gravest kind in the ground-plan and constructive principle, so to speak, of all the plans proposed. The great general consideration upon which all parties, pri- marily under the blundering inspiration of the Manchester school, have agreed to treat the subject of the government of In- dia is not the question how the legislative and executive functions of Indian government can be best provided for, and where best carried on ; but simply, how the greatest amount of what is vaguely called "responsibility," can be secured. And under the mistaken view of securing this "responsibility," statesmen of all schools are pretty nearly agreed to make the English branch of Indian government a single handed executive and legislative despotism "tempered" or "guided," or "assisted" by periti, who may be called into consultation at the despot's will. But this is an absolutely new view of the business of constructing govern. ments. The questions involved in that important, it might almost be said awful task, are three. What is the work to be done by the proposed Government; who shall do it ; and how shall the doers thereof be watched and controlled ? These questions rank in order of logic and of importance. But the India question is treated purely with reference to the third alone. A proceeding as absurd as though a railway, company should neglect the raising of its capital stock because it had secured a good auditor. And this mode of setting to the work which is so plainly wrong in the ab- stract, becomes almost unendurable to rational men in the flagrance of its folly, when considered in reference to those who urge the primary necessity of" responsibility," and the capability which the very propounders of the doctrine themselves attribute to the Parliament which is to exercise the control. It would be ridicu- lous, were it not for the absorbing importance of the subject, to hear Lord Palmerston, the very incarnation of diplomatic re- serve, the very man who on Mr. Wise's motion laid down princi- ples of ministerial action, which as no man better knows, amount to a practical freedom from Parliamentary control, announcing gravely to Parliament, that the Minister for India must be made absolute to be responsible ; that he must not be screened by a powerful council. But the very climax of absurdity is reached by Lord John, who imtreats the House to secure at this crisis in its most ample form a power of controlling the minister, which, ac- cording to his opinion, it is certain, from defect of interest on the subject, never to exercise. For, be it observed, if responsibility to Parliament is to be the justification of an absolute individual despotism, this can only be if the control be continuous, vigilant, unrelaxing. To intervene in moments of excitement or disaster would be to look to the blunder of the present moment, as the fly-wheel of the future governing machine of India.

We do not believe that there can be effective organic legislation upon this subject, so long as the present exclusive point of view of responsibility is adhered to. And certainly if the experience of the last hundred years is to be taken into account, there is no reasonable expectation of a sufficiently active continuous Parlia- mentary interest in India to authorize the perilling the empire upon that feeling. It is not necessary to go so far as Mr. Glad- stone does in prophetic denunciation of an active spirit of future Parliamentary mischief. Upon this subject, as on others, that very distinguished person has shown the practical weakness of his intellectual structure for dealing with senates ; which is this, that he never cares to place himself in that active sympathy with his audience which is so great a source of Parliamentary power. Upon this subject it is not necessary to vilify or to deifly the people and Parliament of England ; or to say more than that they are subject to that great indefeasible law and duty of nature, that their own work should be first, and is likely to be sufficient for them. And we deplore the introduction into this great practical question, of other elements, save those of the plain common-sense wisdom, which we believe goes to its very heart, and. is the very rock and foundation of safety.

If Parliament legislates in the present or any future session upon India, it can do so prudently only after having mastered thoroughly the first question, of the actual functions and field of exertion of the Indian and proposed home authorities. Simply to declare that there shall be a Secretary of State, with a Council, with no more of definitive assignment of duties than is involved in the free use throughout Resolutions or Bill of such phrases as " powers " " duties, ' "transaction of business," &c., is to show a poverty-stricken state of the legislative intellect, and to inaugurate the very apotheosis of twaddle and hap-hazard. The government of India is emphatically one of those things that is certain not to go right of itself. Our position in relation to India is not one of de- velopment, but of superposition and conquest. And though it may not be true that that which was gained by the sword can be kept by the sword alone, it is certainly true that what was so gained can be kept only by unceasing vigilance both executive and legis- lative. To this case the doctrine of laisser faire certainly is not applicable. Pure economists, like Sir G. C. Lewis, who begin by expressing sceptical doubts of the value of India to England altogether, are the worst of all authorities -upon this question; for their opinions will lead them to apply the modern English prinz ciple of reducing the state's action to a minimum, to a case wher- its application, even in a slight degree, will be fatal to the con- tinuance of the empire. India must be governed, for an indefi- nite time, as a mixed bureaucratic and military despotism. If that government is to be conducted with advantage to India by England, if two existences so radically antagonistic in principles, traditions, and national life, are to be thus joined together, every- thing must be matter of wise forethought: all the various pro- blems involved in the alliance must be well and maturely weighed ; expressed in the most perfect available form of words, men, and institutions ; not settled under the promptings of hurry or egotism ; nor left to the occasional corrections of alarm, ex- citement, and disaster. What is at present offered as the legisla- tive solution of all the doubts, difficulties, and dangers which surround the subject, and are causing to the thinking part of this community an inexpressible anxiety ? Substantially not more than this barren frivolity, that there shall be—a Secretary of State.