The die is cast—and, without even an energetic struggle for self-preservation, the East India Company is destroyed. For weal or for woe, our Asiatic possessions are henceforth to be under the direct and actual control of the Crown —or, in other words, of the Prime Minister of England for the time being.

And now commence the real difficulties of the question—difficulties, general and special. How is India to be governed and treated? No one can suppose that the Act which received the Royal Assent on the second day of this present month is, or is intended to be, a complete and final measure. What further steps, then, are requisite? Assume that the Sepoy Mutiny is, or will be, effectually suppressed ; what then?— There will still remain the permanent and incurable dislike of the haughty Mussulman to British rule—the secret combinations and confederacies of Native Princes—the discontent of all religions and castes, by reason of the transfer of power from the Company, whom they knew and understood, to the QUEEN, whom they neither know nor understand,—and who in their imaginations will simply be the ideal of an Asiatic despot—tyrannical, oppressive, exacting, faithless, and dissolute.

How, we again ask, is India to be governed and treated? There are two modes of proceeding ;—one, bold and decided—the other, hesitating and imbecile. If the British Sovereign is really to govern India, the machinery of the new Act is either superfluous or imperfect. If so much power is to be concentrated in one Person, a simpler proceeding must, sooner or later, be adopted. Our Indian possessions must be treated as a conquered country—no further conquest or annexation should be sought—but what we have, must be treated as our own. Can we stop short of proclaiming the QUEEN Of ENGLAND, QUEEN or EMPRESS of HINDOSTAN, and declaring the Law of England, as henceforth the Law of Hindostan? To effect any useful purpose, the Government of India must be local and self-sufficient—entrusted to a Viceroy, aided by a Council—there must be a Lord Chancellor and an Archbishop ; the number of Presidencies must be increased, and each new Presidency provided with a Supreme Court of Justice and a Bishop. By establishing the Law of England, the question (extremely difficult, if timidly dealt with) of the public recognition, Within our own territories of Idolatry and Mahometanism, as the State Religions, would be indirectly and yet decidedly resolved—because Christianity is part of the law of England—and consequently all the open demonstrations of idolatrous worship in the forms of public processions, feasts, and abominable spectacle, would be, at the proper time, forbidden and prevented. Let it not be supposed that we advocate the compulsory observance of Christianity by the Natives — such an attempt would be absurd and futile, as well as inconsistent with, and prohibited by the mild character of our Faith. But a fearless course (such as we have suggested) would be more likely, than any other, to succeed in permanently quieting India, and subsequently introducing the benefits of Christianity: the Mussulman would be overawed—the Hindoo would acquiesce—and all the Native Princes would feel that they were in the iron grasp of a mighty Victor, whose rule must be obeyed—and so feeling, they would silently submit. The future effusion of human blood would be saved! Idolatry would slowly, but surely, diminish in power; especially if (as would be the case) schools, colleges, and the spread of general knowledge, and good moral example, did their quiet and unobtrusive work,—without force, compulsion, or even undue influence. In the long run, this would be the most merciful course. Nor is it tainted with injustice—because by universal law the conqueror can impose his own terms upon the conquered. Add to these considerations, the pomp and glitter and circumstance of a Vice-regal Court—typifying the inconceivable glory and power of the absent Sovereign, the mighty Ruler of the destinies of two vast empires—and eclipsing even the pride and splendour of Oriental grandeur. The effect would be prodigious upon the Asiatic mind.

We advocate a bold course, not only because a different policy will in India always fail–will by Asiatics be attributed to cowardice; will encourage distrust, contempt, and conspiracy; but also because a bold course has repeatedly succeeded. We remember what CLIVE and WELLESLEY and DUNCAN and BENTICK and other worthies achieved by daring yet prudent action in cases of emergency, civil and military. Would Bengal be now a British province, if CLIVE had faltered ?—Would TIPPOO have fallen, if WELLESLEY had vacillated?—Would Infanticide have been exterminated, if DUNCAN had listened to arguments as to long-established prejudices ? Would Sutteeism have disappeared, if BENTICK had been deterred by the threat of insurrection? With equal facility might the obscene rites of Juggernaut, and all other abominations of Idolatry and of Mahometanism, be suppressed (so far as their public exhibition is concerned) if India were now ruled by a DUNCAN or a BENTICK, unfettered by the counteraction of ignorant timidity in England.

But, the spirit of recent Parliamentary Debates, the declarations of Lord ELLENBOROUGH, the remarks of various members of the Ministry, the language of the new Act, and the reply, given by Lord STANLEY so recently as last Saturday to a deputation upon the subject of religion in India, all prohibit the hope of any manly, energetic, and well-sustained course of proceeding. A policy, hesitating and imbecile, will be adopted under the specious pretext of equality of rights, laws, and religion; the Natives will be flattered, courted, succumbed to —ldolatry and Mahometanism will be recognized: as the acknowledged State religions; British soldiers and civilians will be compelled to honour and encourage the public exhibition of their beastly rites; in short, everything will go on just as heretofore—and, in a very few years, there will be a fresh and more extensive adverse combination, and INDIA WILL BE LOST! We suppose, indeed, that in pursuance of the 75th section, the new Act will be “proclaimed in the several Presidencies of India as soon as conveniently may be after its receipt by the Governor-general,”—a faint and unmeaning cry, which will be echoed and received amongst our Asiatic population by the derisive laugh of the bold, the secret scorn of the more discreet, and the stupid stare of the ignorant. “This is a mere farce; the Feringhees send us a piece of paper; they dare do no more;” —will be the remark of millions. England will be despised, and at the fitting moment, attacked.

But, whatever policy is adopted, one thing is certain, —practically, India must at present be treated as a conquered country; unless we are prepared to abandon that country altogether: and herein consists our main difficulty. The Bengal Native Army is extinct; never again can be safely organised,—and he must be either a very bold or a very credulous man, who places implicit reliance on the Madras and Bombay Native Armies, although hitherto they have not misbehaved; but, even if faithful they are not sufficient in number. Well, then, to meet the exigencies of the time, there must be kept up in India a purely British force of one hundred thousand men of all arms. How is this to be done?—and, if done, how is England itself to be adequately, or even moderately provided with troops for self-defence? Here is the practical, the intelligible difficulty, which meets every political party, every Ministry, and every Parliament.

Now, as to the “Act for the better Government of India,” which received the Royal Assent on the 2nd August, 1858, a brief analysis of which will naturally be expected by our readers. This Act has the usual characteristics of modern legislation; looseness and indistinctness in expression, and consequent uncertainty in construction. We anticipate a series of Acts to amend the Act.

Its most material provisions are the following: All the territories under the Government of the East India Company, and all rights of the Company, are vested in Her MAJESTY—and India is to be governed by and in Her name. We presume that a fifth Principal Secretary of State for Indian affairs is intended to be created,—but we are somewhat at a loss to comprehend the precise meaning of the Act, or the variation in the terms “The Secretary of State.” “The Secretary of State in Council,” and, “One of Her Majesty’s Principal Secretaries of State,” occurring in different sections, and sometimes in the same section. A Council is established consisting of fifteen members, to be styled “The Council of India ;” of whom, in the first instance, seven are to be elected by the Court of Directors of the East India Company, and eight are to be appointed by Her MAJESTY. Every member of this Council holds office during good behaviour, with a yearly salary of twelve hundred pounds payable out of the revenues of India, and is incapable of sitting in Parliament.

The duties of this new Council are defined by the nineteenth section, which we do not comprehend. We imagine that the to-be-created fifth Secretary of State for India and the First Lord of the Treasury are or may be therein intended, as separate and distinct persons; if so, the machinery is inconveniently complex. By the twentieth section, the Secretary of State” (whoever may be meant by that description) has the power of dividing the Council into Committees for the more convenient transaction of business. He is to be President of the Council, and may appoint and remove a Vice-President. The meetings of the Council are to be at least weekly, and five members form a quorum for despatch of business!

(As published in the National Standard)