Current:

Leader (1850-1860), 19th May 1860, Edition 2 of 2, Page 4

Page 4
Page 4
4 of 24

On this page

  • Text (2)
  • Transcript

    • Note: This text has been automatically extracted via Optical Character Recognition (OCR) software. The text has not been manually corrected and should not be relied on to be an accurate representation of the item.

      Additionally, when viewing full transcripts, extracted text may not be in the same order as the original document.

      Dismissal Of Sir Ohaules Trevelyan. "Vtt...

      offended were Sir Charles Wood and Mr . WiLSOisr . The more faults he pointed but in their projects , the more their haste in fixing them on India became reprehensible .- . We notice with regret , because Sir C . Trevelyan was appointed by Lord Stanley ; and Mr . Wilson by SirC . Wood , that a disposition prevails to make a mere party question of this important matter . It concerns the people of England much more than the outs and the ins . The Government of India was transferred from the Company to the Parliament and people that they might eheck a misrule / which had led to mutiny and dishonoured the nation . But on the very first important question

      that oceurs after the transfer , the people and Parliament are actually shut but from all interference by the hasty despotism of Mr . Wilson and Sir Charles Wood . The gentleman , too , who , acting in the spirit and intention of the act of transfer , lias sought to make this important question known and interesting to the pubEc , is thrust aside with more arrogance than Loitts Napoleon would , after a warning , suppress a truth-speaking journal . Thoroughly convinced that despotism , by whomsoever exercised , is inimical to the welfare of states , the people will regret the substitution of the spiteful despotism of Wilson * and Wood even for the tardy ^ timid misrule of the Company . The

      bureaucracy may defend the maintenance of a military subordination amongst its members i which is much admired in "France and Germany , though new in England ; but the nation is insulted and injured—the freedom of discussion is violated by the summary dismissal of Sir C . Trevelyan for publishing an excellent criticism on the project of a rival . A false analogy seems to lead some minds to an erroneous conclusion . When a gentleman accepts a seat in the Cabinet , lie is bound to speak and vote with

      his colleagues . When a man accepts a commission in the army , he is bound to obey his commanding officer . But when Sir Charles Treveylan accepted the governorship of Madras , he did not bind himself to keep silence on every project of the Government ; To confound his openly piiblished criticism with the disobedience of a military man , or the defection of a . Cabinet minister , is , consequentlyi a mistake . Sir Charles was bound to criticise Mr , Wilson ' s project , and only acquiesce in it after it had become law .

      As long as official subordination is rigidly maintained , ministers should avoid all appointments which may lead to insubordination . They must have known that these two officials did not draw cordially together at the Treasury , and it was therefore wrong to place them in high offices , where there must be antagonism . They ought to have foreseen that Sir Charles Trevelyan , priding himself on his knowledge of India , and , regarded by others as an authority on its 'finances , cotild not be well pleased to see Mr . Wilson thrust over him into an office that

      he might justly aspire to . He could not be expected cordially —certainly not humbly and blindly , like a poor dependant—to subserve Mr . Wilson ' s ] rurposes . Ministers , being themselves Very ignorant on Indian finance , were probably willing to cast the burden on Mr , Wilson , and readily availed themselves of his eager ambition to bear it . They , then , are much to blame for having placed these gentlemen in their relative positions . Whatever be the merit , too , of Mr . Wilson ' s project , which , after all , is nothing better than the crude and vulgar taxation of England applied to India , condemned' at Calcutta and Manchester , as well as at Madras , he first made a sneering attack on Madras officials . Sir Charles Trevelyan . in fine ,

      is punished for the want of knowledge and discrimination in our martinet ministers , and for not haying been more discreet than Mr . Wilson . Tho important question of Indian finance is for the moment lost in the more important matter that ministers have dismissed a long-tried servant to stifle discussion and carry sordid measures in a despotic manner .

      464 The Jjetider/Mdsam"Dafankh/Sl [Mat 1...

      464 The Jjetider / mdSaM"dafAnkh / sL [ Mat 19 , I 860 .

      The Lords And The Paper Duty. It Is Very...

      THE LORDS AND THE PAPER DUTY . IT is very dangerous for any portion of the Constitution to become a bore ; and yet , while the House of Commons wns nightly proving itself to be one of the most tedious ever remembered , the Lords , with the exception of an occasional flash of pugnacious patriotism from the venerable Lyndhukst , contributed nothing to public profit , and very little to national recreation , Here and there appeared some small matters of interest : — -it was curious , if not edifying , to compute how ninny M . IVs

      were mere tops for tho publicnns' beer barrels , rendy to be turned on at any moment , and pour forth whatever sort of rhetorical brew the lords of the mash-Uib might be plensed to desire ; mid then , in ' another place , " a dowoger diplomat occasiomilly turned his hand to heavy comedy and ponderous farce . Still we -wanted something more exciting , and felt inclined to contract with E . T . Smith to get up a new legislature , witli brilliant cenio effects , and a well-contrived libretto with due admixture

      of recitative and airs , when happily Mr . Horsman provided an evening ' s entertainment , entitled "A Night with the . Times . ; ' * and , immediately afterwards , 'Lord Derby undertook to reappear in his old character of Prince Rupert , and give us the spectacle of a dashing but ill-considered charge . Violent collision may be unpleasant and undesirable , but without some friction we get neither light nor heat , and we rejoice to see our venerable peers

      come out with matches , tinder-box , flint , and steel , and do their part towards converting the paper question into a cheerful blaze . Hereditary wisdom is apt to grow rusty in repose , and there was nothing so likely to give it an effectual airing as a revival of the good old discussions about the privileges of the Commons and the functions of supply . The people have always been and must be gainers by such disputes , and , therefore , at the outset , we thank the " Lords " for bringing so good a quarrel upon the scene .

      The facts of the present case are very simple . The Commons have changed the incidence of a million and a half of taxation . They have agreed to relieve literature and industiy from the paper duty , and replace the sum thus lost by another impost . The Lords threaten to reject the Paper Duty Repeal Bill , and leave the rest of the Budget untouched . The consequence would be that through the act of the herediteiry and non-representative part of the Legislature , a heavy tax would be imposed upon the community . That the Lords will persevere we can scarcely expect , although their so doing would give great impulse to parliamentary reform by forcing the country to a

      reconsideration of the fundamental principles of the constitution . The rights and powers of the House of Peers in these questions have often formed the subject of dispute , but the growing importance of the Commons after the Great Revolution left the peers no alternative but that of prudentially giving way . In ancient times the Commons appear as the conceding , and the Lords as the consenting ^ power in the grant of money supplies to the Sovereign ; and in . the first parliament of Charles the First the ComMons began to omit the name of the Lords 4 n the preamble of bills of supply , and treated them as entirely their own . The Lords found themselves obliged to confess that the power

      of originating supplies was entirely vested in the Commons , but it was some time before they gave up the claim to alter money clauses which had passetl the Lower House . In 1661 the Lords attempted to originate taxation by sending to the Commons a bill for paving the streets of Westminster , which the Commons rejected as contrary to their privileges , and passed another , which the Lords amended and the Commons again rejected . A little later , in 1671 , the Commons passed a resolution " that in all aids given to the King by the Commons , the rate or tax ought not to be altered by the Lords . " This led to much discussion , but the most learned supporters of the side of

      the peers have admitted that they cannot increase the rates , since that would amount to originating a charge upon the people . Under the present circumstances the Lords would virtually originate taxation , if they continued to add the paper duties to the taxation which the Commons have appointed in their stead . As the matter stands , the constitutional doctrine is that the Lords may reject , but may not alter bills of supply ; but they would find , in practice , that they would not be permitted toexercise any such power except in rare emergencies . The Peers possess great wealth * but that is no peculiar property of their class . Many Commoners are great landholders , and scores of merchants

      and manufacturers are more wealthy than the average of the Peers . Ascitizens . the Peers have a claim to representation , and a fair shnrc of the power of voting taxes , but they cannot take their stand upon common rights until they are prepared to give up their peculiar privileges . The House of Commons is , to an unfortunate extent , filled witli their relatives and nominees . They virtually choose nearly all the members of a Cabinet , as very few Commoners are permitted to hold great offices of State . They cause court patronage to be corruptly distributed for their own benefit , and members of their order or of their families arc gazetted to colonelcies or still higher commands in the army , in consideration of no better services than playing the flunkey in royal palaces ; and they possess an indefinite power of obstructing the wish of

      the people by rejecting beneficiol measures , that tend to a greater diffusion of * the advantages of property than is consistent with the interests of a privileged class . Thus their position doitiands constant care , nnd the exercise of moderation to avoid collisions that must end in their loss of authority or prestige . If the House of Commons had . proppsed , in lieu of the . paper duties , to levy n tax upon the inheritance of titles , which , might not be a bad measure , we could not have wondered that they should object to the proposal ; but when they kick against the repeal of a tax on a , particular branch of manufacture , we are compelled to look for other than fiscal or directly pcrsonnl reasons for conduct so strange , and we believe the explanation will be found in tho determination . of certain peers to resist the growth of

  • Citation
    • Leader (1850-1860), May 19, 1860, page 4, in the Nineteenth-Century Serials Edition (2008; 2018) ncse-os.kdl.kcl.ac.uk/periodicals/l/issues/cld_19051860/page/4/