On this page

• Departments (2)
  • 
  • 
• Text (5)

  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.

  • 

    Untitled Article

  • 

    Untitled Article

  • 

    Untitled Article

  • 

    WHAT WILL THE LOUDS DO? ¦ ¦

  • 

    DISMISSAL OF SIR, CHARLES TREVELYAN.

• 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.

    Untitled Article

    fTYLlE repeal of tlie Paper Duty having been voted in the X House of Commons by a majority of ten , it lemains for the House of Lords to give or to withhold its assent to the ministerial Bill for that purpose . The second reading is fixed for Monday next , and Lord Monteagle has given notice of his intention to move its postponement to that day six months . Lord Derb y has announced that he , and the numerous party that follow him , will support the amendment ; not that they affect in general any particular love for the ci-devant Chancellor of the Exchequer , but that they are ready to avail themselves of his financial knowledge aud experience to inflict a damaging blow on the Budget of Mr . Gladstone . When his with before them

    their Lordships to exercise their privilege in this behalf , and to set a precedent . which every sensible man amongst them will feel they could not afford frequently to venture to follow , is a matter well worth Lord Derby's consideration between , this and Monday next . We shall argue its constitutional effect- . elsewhere ; here we merely state the case , and put the question .

    Commercial Treaty France came , they protested , but submitted ; when his additional income tax was presented for their approval they grumbled , but ventured not effectually to gainsay ; they knew that botli had not only been carried by large majorities in the other House , but that they were " cordially approved of out of doors ; and they wisely abstained , therefore , from running a tilt against either . But the Repeal-of the Paper Duty stands in a different position . 1 W the mass of the community it is viewed with absolute indifference , and amongst booksellers and journalists of respectability and standing its benefits are much contested . All the influence of Government and all the marvellous powers of suasion exercised by Mr . Gladstone , have foiled to obtain for it the sanction , of more than a nominal majority . The

    Conservative peers feel , consequently , no extraneous pressure deterring them from the exercise of their legislative veto ; and they are greatly emboldened to take this course by the knowledge that many of the best men of the Whig party in the Upper House are prepared to vote with Lord Monteagle . The names of Lords Grey and Nor-manby will probably excite no surprise ; but if it be true , as we have reason to believe , that Lords

    Paxmure , OVEItSTONE , CaMTERPOUX / ShELBOURNE , VlVIAX , and Abebcrombie are certain to vote against the Bill , and that Lords Lansdowne , Fitzwilliam , and Leicester are likely to stay away rather than take an active part- in condemnation of the measure , —it is clear that the question is taken out of the- sphcrejjf party strife , and that it must be viewed upon its own intrinsic merits iisaportion of the general financial scheme for the venr .

    We do not " overlook the constitutional aspect in which the question is viewed by many , and energetically contended for by some . Our predilections * do not certainly incline us to favour Any encroachment or aggression on the part of the House of Lords ; and we are free to own that we think the less that Assembly interferes with matters of taxation , the better for the : nmTrtenance-oMts ~ ow n-p © weiv ^^ at large . But when Mr . Gladstone gets into a paroxysm of rage at the notion of the Upper House presuming to negative one of his many financial propositions , all the rest of . which ,-as far as they have come before them , they have meekly though mistrustfully ratified , we think he commits a greater error

    than they . ' And when Mr . Bright lushes to St . Martins Hall to raise the constitutional cry of " Eire ! fire ! " because the Lords temporal and spiritual do not place implicit confidence in Mr . Milker Gibson ' s prophecies about cheap journalism , or sympathize in his own impatience to make away with another £ 1 , 200 , 000 of indirect taxation , we think that they arc simplificating themselves . People in general , who have 119 direct interest in the matter ^ and who are apt to judge more calmly jmd consistently than the passionate tribunes of the platform or of Parliament , ' will probably discuss the matter in a very different temper . To them it will appear absurd to say that a Bill "for the repeal of an excise duty , in order to obtain the form of law , must be read three times , and go through committee clause by

    clause in the House of Peers , if the whole thing is more mummery and shnrn , implying morally nml legislatively nothing ; and to them it will appear yet more incomprehensible how the performance of this cgVcgious farce should" be an established , recognised , nny , essential usage of the constitution , find that ; not one word to that effect can be found in the records of either House of Parliament , in any statute of the realm , or in any textbook of law or history . And when , in . addition to the negative presumptions thus raised , they find n strong practical one afforded by the unison of sentiment nnd conduct between men of opposite sides nud opiniqns , both in nml'out of-Parliament , they will doubtless incline to the conclusion tlrat them is no ground

    . for pretending that the rejection of the Paper Duty Repeal Bill is either a " dangerous innovation , " as Mr . Gladstonk says , or n rapacious outrage as Mr . liitioiiT politel y calls it . Technically and theoretically the Peers have a perfect right to throw out the Bill if they please ; and that they do plcaso there is hnrdly nny room to question . But whether it is prudent in

    Untitled Article

    WHEN Mr . Gladstone brought his Budget before Parliament we spoke of his eloquence as seductive and misleading . Now it is acknowledged that the discussion to which his Budget has been subjected has weeded it of several faults . We remarked , too , when referring to the report of the French ministers to the Emperor , that it served , like our debates , to make known the reasons on which legislation is founded . Our Indian fellow-subjects , less happily p laced than ourselves , or than the French , have neither debates nor reports to enlighten them , and the official gentleman who has made an attempt to effect this has been dismissed contumeliously from office . We

    anticipated last week that two parvenus , equally ambitious of bureaucratic honour and emolument , could not both remain in the service of the State ; nevertheless , we are somewhat surprised at the hasty manner in which Sir Chaules has been sacrificed to Mr . Wilson . In our view , the Minute was to do lor the public in India and here -what the debates have done with so much advantage for Mr . Gladstone's Budget—delay the progress of a crude scheme and improve it . We supposed , consequentlywhatever official etiquette might demand—that deference to the public here and in India , so deeply interested in having this great subject fully ventilated , would have prevented the ministers from iguominiously dismissing Sir Charles . Dreading discussion , they have tried to suppress it by punishing the gentleman who ' provoked it . Ijmo facto , their scheme and their conduct are condemned .

    On February 18 th Mr . WiLSON-jnade his financial ' statement ; on April 7 th his taxing bills were read a second time , and on May 1 st they were intended to come into operation . In ten ¦ weeks , then , from . ' the first announcement of a new and gigantic scheme of taxation by a gentleman till then a perfect stranger to India , and who has in . ' no instance had an opportunity -of showing in his subordinate place in the Treasury any capacity as a statesman ,, that scheme was for the future weal or woe of India to become law . To interpose and check such dangerous legislation , to a .-k for a more searching investigation before detected errors of detail and errors of principle were embodied into a permanent enactment , it

    was extremely reasonable . Tt was , however , unexpected ; was mortifying both to Mr . Wilson and Sir C . Wood swift in doing ' injustice ; and on pretence of insubordination , the Ministers . have removed the obstacle to their hasty and despotic proceedings . Sir Charles Trevelyan ciisobTyeTl no—irsrrlcr *; neglected nothing to give effect to directions from the Government ; he only criticised the crude project of his rival . Madras is represented in the Council at Calcutta , and Sir -Charles might have sent his minute thither , and had it read , ami-published in all the papers . He thought , probably , time ; would not allow it ; and thus his only offence—if offence it can be calledwas a little irregularity in giving publicity to his opinion .

    As the Governor of Madras , he was bound to state it . lie thought , whether correctly or not , that . the / new taxes would be extremely injurious to the people over whom he presided , and tu save them , he " tried to stay the pestilence . " " At a great personal sacrifice , " . said Lord Elluxhoiiougii , "he thought to do a great service to the country . " " There is danger , not in what he said , but in neglecting his advice . " In lu ' s justification ,, let between him and

    it be remembered that no rule of subordination the new finance minister was declared by law or established by custom . For ninny years the governors of Presidencies have commented on the orders of the Supreme -Government , ' nml have frequently interposed to prevent them being carried into effect . The last papers arrived from India inform us that the Governor of Mysore , Sir Ma kk Cluhijon , opposed the plan of the Supreme Government to transfer that district to the Government ol

    Madras , and , us hi * views were :. iot followed , resigned his post— - showing practically to the people , who confided in him , that he disapproved of tlie plan , lie is not . punished , but honoured . The conduct of Sir C ; TitEynv-VAX , then , is very much , in conformity with the practices of the . -officials of India . His Minute is much praised by every competent person ; oven Sir CiiAin . Ks Wood has mentioned it with approbation , lho one thing censured is the irregular publication . Tim one orimo committed i . s that of having made the truth known . What enn tlie public infer from tins , but that the great desire , slill cherished by Indian officials , as heretofore , is to shroud their conduct m secrecy P They abhor the light , because they know their deeds are dark . The more correct was Sir C . TiiKVJaVAX , the inoro

    Untitled Article

    May ; 19 , 1860 . J The Leader a 7 id Saturday Analyst . 463

    What Will The Louds Do? ¦ ¦

    WHAT WILL THE LOUDS DO ?

    Dismissal Of Sir, Charles Trevelyan.

    DISMISSAL OF SIR CHAULES TREVELYAN .

• Citation
  • Leader (1850-1860), May 19, 1860, page 463, in the Nineteenth-Century Serials Edition (2008; 2018) ncse-os.kdl.kcl.ac.uk/periodicals/l/issues/vm2-ncseproduct2348/page/3/