The Express. — London, England, 1853-07-29 00:00:00

IMPERIAL PARLIAMENT. --- HOUSE OF LOlMS.—TnrasoAv, JULY 28. The Luau Csasegudits took his teat at 6 is PUBLIC BUSINESS. I'ETI VIONS PRESENTED. 111111UNALS oV CuyblkltCY.-I.ly Lord BEAUMONT, Iron the Leeds Chamber of Commerce, in favour of tribe :oh 4 tetelatefee. Sraltialre --'IIT Lord BERNERS, from Lrierree Sad tithe, in S -utliad, praying tor the inspection of nunneries. iNTON.Ic vrINO Lttiouus.—By lord BERNEIIS, from plows is Lomelmlterr. %atom the sale ol intoliesticg Brows on Sundays. Lbw er Serrt.aeter—By BERNERS, from aVallineton,eomplaming of the law of settlement, and the Unequal system of rating. COUNTY Cousirs.--tiy Lord BILOC , MANL from Boa. per sad Llaarest, is t f tne txteivuou of County Courts. cousTy COI'ItTS FURTHER EXTENSION DILL. Lard HROCOHANI, alter stating the amount of business done in the County Courts for three yr ars ■p to the end of POI —a statement which he had fre quently before to 010 to the house pointed out some of the imperfections in the existing County Courts. The noble and learned lld then announced his in tention of withdrawing for the present session the County Courts Further Esretuain lfrl, the County Courts Equit able Jurisdiction Bill, and the bill which had been framed fur facilitating arbitrations. It was his intention to re in troduce them neat session. and be begged now to lay the • Arbstratiun Bill on the table. The LORD CHANCELLOR said as his noble ani leagued friend had not informed him beforehand of the course which he intended to take, be could not then pro- mise anything beyond an assent to the first reading. After a few words from Lord 13itoutivalt, the bill was read a first time. SUCCESSION DUTY BILL. The Earl of ABERDEEN moved the third reading of this bill. The Earl of CLANCARTY protested against the steps taken by the government to carry this hill, which he thought affected the privileges of their lordships' house, and was calculated to compromise its utility. The bill wee then read • third time. On the motion that the bill do lass, Lord St. LEONAIt DS said that before the bill parted he wished to show, in the shape of antendmen.s, the objections that waisted against it, so that hereafter the country would be able to judge between the bill as it stood and the hill as it would bo if these aniendeneew were adopted by parlia meat. Having once ascertained that the feeling of the louse was in favour of the prinei ole of the measure, his sincere wish was to make the bill as good as it could be made. As it was not his intention to divide the house, he would not ask the °pistils° of their lordships on each amend ment, but would move them altogether at tile close of his observations. His lordship then proceeded to point out various ohjeetines which have been frequently made to the bill, and to suggest amendments in accordance. His object lad been to amend the bid, if it were possible ; but seeing the spirit which prevailed in the house on Monday, he had abstained from taking part in the discussion in committee, end he now only proposed his amendments that the public might see the grounds un which the opposition had acted. Lord BEAUMONT said he coruially approved of one of the amendments—that which made the s.ttler the prede cessor in alit:awe, and not the party immediately before in poesassion. Lord BERNERS referred to the evidence given before their lordships' committee on the burdens of land, and con tended that real property waa)dready unjustly burdened. E irl GRANVILLE said OM subject ol burdens on laud mu too large a question to be discussed en that occasion. It had been assumed all along by the opposition that this bid woul l impose as large a duty on land as on personalty; but it appeared that the amount derived from land would may be about 50 per cent. of that from personal property. He did not think that the proposal of Lord Beaumont for • uniform duty of 2 per ant. would be very favourably re eeived by those who complained of the special burdens on land. It wee • fair estimate that two-thirds of the landed property would only pay one pet cent. under this bill. On the other palate the noble lord had answered his own ob jections. (Hear, tear.) In framing • measure of this kind it was aesemary to adopt one of two principles—either to make each successor pay according to the relationship of his immediate predecessor, or 01 the person from whom he derived the property by deed. Whatever might be the merits of the two preeiplee, it was certain that more money would have been derived had the government adopted the former one ; and though the prin ciple adhered to in the bill might in one or two eases set hardly epos individuals, it was most favourable to the greet majority of pernne possessing land. Instead of paying two per teat. as succeeding to one another, brothers would only psy sue per cent. as deriviiig from their father; and that was an immense advantage to the leaded interest. (Ile sr, hear.) Whatever hardships might occur under this bill, the serae existed, but to • much more severe extent, under the Legacy Duty Arts. The Earl of WICKLOW said it was quite clear that the . ohjeet of the noble lords opposite had been to defeat the bill altogether, or =say of thee, amendments would have been proposed in coramitteee at the proper time. He admitted that this was • most complicated measure, full of contradie tory and oppressive provisions, and he was satisfied that in a subsequent session a bill would have to be brought in to remove its defects and render it more palatable to the com =unity. The Marquis of S.tLISBURY denied that the object of the opponents of the measure had been to defeat it. All that they wanted was to remove many of its giasing incon sistenciee, and their lordships were decidedly to blame for sot entertaining many of the reasonable amendments that bad been proposed to them. The bill was them pawed. BILLS ADVANCED A STAGE. The Registrar of Meetings Bill and the Stamp Duties Bill were nod • second tame, and oretered to be committed. The Spitallields and Snoreditch Improvement Bill and the Nlisalemisy Bishops Bill were read • third time, and paned. The Parish Vestries (No. 2) Bill, the Entails (Scotland) Bill, the Castes* Ditties Bill, and the Dublin Parliamentary ' Regiatra inn Bill, were passed through committee. NATIONAL EDUCATION IN IRELAND. Viscount CLANCAIt TY called the attentios of her Majosty's government to the fact that on the 7th of March and on the 13th at April last respectively, addresses were agreed to by this house for the production of certain returns relative to the °petition of the national system of education in Ireland, and that no returns have yet been furnished. He believed it would be found when these returns were forthcoming that not one tenth of the scholars remained in the schools after 11 years of age, and consequently the in struction afforded to the great majority of the children under this system could be neither desirable nor effective. Moreover, it would be shown that the system had failed— Roman catholic and protestant children in thesame schools— and the consciousness of this failure, he was afraid, made the government reluctant to produce the required returns. The E irl of ABERDEEN readily admitted that them returns had been delayed fur an unusual period, but it was ridiculous to suppose that the delay arose from the cause suggested by the noble earl. The fact mu the delay had resulted from causes over which the government had no more control than the noble earl himself. So far from the system having failed, he believed the return would show that it had been the means of conferring a great blessing upon Ireland. (Hear, hear.) SEE OF SALISBURY. The Bishop of SALISBURY. in moving for certain 1 returns of again received by him, made a long ! speech in explanation of receat actuations made under this head. The returns were ordered. PRIVATE BILLS. Lord BEAUMONT said he rose to all the attention of their lordships to the mutat state of private bills. Such bill. were that you in • somewhat peculiar position owing *delay whir* ked takes place in the other house: • delay seising partly bum the resolution pseud by the House of OMNI* in isliesery, with regard to railway bills ' and =fres the *mew ember and the lengthened pro of deed* cessusitteee. By a sessional order of their lordships' hew it was provided that no private bill should be rend a second time after the 12th of July, unless the *lva* bill committer saw sufficient reason be making ea exception, No doubt this order was in itself a win one; but as it ap peared that is several cases there had been delay with respect to which the promoters of the bills had no control, and for which they were not at all responsible, he thought it desirable that in these cases the second reading should be allowed. If his proposal were acceded to- he would do his hest to secure the attendance of • sufficient number of members is committee. Of coarse the attendance motet for this session he voluntary ; but with regard to the future, he thought a system of natation might be advantageolely adopted Lord REDESDALE would be very happy to accede to the emigrates of his noble friend that the sessional order should be relaxed. He bellowed, however, that the adoption of the order had been of great importance with reference to the despatch of butiaess is both houses. (Haar, hear.) The Duke of NEWCASTLE entirely ameurred with his noble friend the Chairmen of Committees as to the desir ableness of maintaining the samiesal erase, and hoped that nothing would be dose that 'widen that could be under stood as indicating an intuition permanently to outapead its operation. Lord STANLEY of ALDERLEY said that if a select committee would be of any service to his noble friend, he should not object to propose one. With regard to neural attendance on committees, it was absolutely necessary that • sew system should be looted. After • few words from the Earl of Powis sad the Earl of Wtegeow, Lord REDESDALE said he would look through the *yorel bills again, with the view of forming an epistles lapse them; sad if there were any upon which he wee doubtful, he would ask for the assistance of a select eada• mimeo. With regard to the adoption of • new system of appointiag eemasittees, ao nee weld be more relieved by $ better ausiagemeat than haesseU; but there were difficul ties with rapist to cam attendance, which might not have weaned to sa ble Oae great difficulty was to find peers, whose immune* es einnenittees would be satisfactory to the partim laminated. So many penman were interested in private Mho, shit he these* • petrel eAngigeory attendance would not be at all satiefectery. THE AFRICAN SQUADRON. Earl WALDZOILLPE asked the niNe lord, the Secre tary of Sumo fenfortign Affairs, whether the reduction of the eaval force es the meet of Africa was temporary or not The set* lord said he had twee Mimed that the reduction was sueb, that the admiral on the stations bad declared that he could sot adrgutely watch the slam yes eels, aad he (Earl Waldegeave) feared that if Ibis were true, the effect would be to undo what bad been done by a vigorous course of proceeding carried en foe several years. The Earl of CLARENDON said that the question of his noble friend was a most legitimate one after the informa tion which he bad received; and it any impression we abroad that her Majesty's government were less anxious I than ever for the suppression of the slave trade or the 'M- Iciewy of the fleet on the coast of Africa, he could only say that he was obliged to bill noble friend for making the in quiry, and giving hint the opportunity of saying that there I was not the least intention of redwing the number of ships or diusiai-bing the efli-ieney of the fleet on that station. The Bishop of OXFORD expressed his satisfaction and gratification at the statement made by the:noble earl on behalf of .he gnrcrnment. There was nothing more mete rial to the success of the undertaking then that they should carry on the work perseveringly and unremittingly till a le iglucosic trade sprung up in those places. I The house then adjourned at 20 minutes past 10. HOUSE OF COMMONS.—TIIIMSDAT, JULY 28. The Srahhia to.k the chair a few eatootes after 12 o'clock. PRIVATE BUSINESS. The lords' amendments to the following bills were con sidered and agreed to :—Birkenhead Dnck Trustees, Blyth and Tyne Railway, Ea►t London Waterworks, Halifax Waterworks and Improvement, Limerick and Foynes Railway. Llanelly Railway and Dock (No. 2), Ribble Na. vigation, and Whitchaven and Furness Junction Railway, Bills. The Cork and 13andon Railway (No. 2) Bill was read • third time and pawed. EASTERN UNION RAILWAY. _ . On the mi7iiinnf.;iiie third reading of thir bill, Sir O. I'ECIIELL moved that the bit be read a third time that day three months. The houve divided — For the third reading Fur the ■mendmeot The bill was then r.. d A third time and passed. SOUTH SEA ANNUITIES, &e., DISSENTIENTS. On the motri.n of the CIIANELLI/11 of the EV:HEW:IR the house resolved itself into committee, to pass resolutions for paying off the dissentient stock-holders. The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER rese to move the following resolutions: I. That provision be made, out of the consolidated fund of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland. for paying off the propriet irs of the capital stocks of Old Beath Sea Annuities, New South Sea Annuities. Bank Annuities (1726), and 31. per centaur Annuities (1751), mentioned in an act of the patent Deb lion, chapter 7J, in respect of which assents to comae shall not have been signified according to the said act, NA also for paying to the South Sea Company a principal sum equal to the amount of the trading or capital stock of the said company, or the part thereof the interest or annuity on which shall not have been commuted or exchanged, as cording to the said act, or any act to be passed in the pre. sent session of parliament : 2. That the South Sea Company shall be permitted to commute, within a time to be limited, all or any part of the annuity or in:eiest on their trading or capital stock, payable in respect of shares in such stock standing in the names of the Accountant-General of the Courts of Chancery of England and Ireland, respectively, and of the Accountant in Bankruptcy in Eng land, and in the names of trustees and others disabled from voting in the General Court of Proprietors of the said company, into or fur any one or more of the stocks and securities authorised to be created and issued by the act of the present session, chap ter twenty-three, and the 31. ss. per Ceo:um Annuities, and New 31. per Callum Annuities, created under the acts of the seventh year of her Majesty, chapters four and five, commonly called and known as 31. ss. per Centum Annui ties (1841), such commutation into or for the said stocks and securities authorised to be created and issued by the said act of the present session, to be upon the terms and sub ject to the conditions upon and subject to which the like commutation was authorised under the said act, and such commutation into or for the said 3!. 54. per Centum Annui ties (1811), to be upon such terms and subject to such con ditions oaths Commiasioners of her Majesty's Treasury may .... • - . see fi t to offer, provided that the ass va of the said company to any such commutation shall be signified to the said Commissioners of the Treasury within such time as may be limited by such commissioners for that purpose. 3. That the South Sea Company shall also be permitted, upon signifying their assent within such time as may be limited by the Commis.itmers of the T y fur this purpose, to commute, upon the same term., and subject to the same canditions, all or any part of the annuity or interest payable in respect of such farther amount of their said capital or trading stock as may be authorised or required by parlia ment to be invested as • guarantee fond for their ad mini.tration of private trusts, is case they should be au thore.ed to undertake such administration by nay act to be passed in the ; present session of parliament." What he pro posed was, that they should avail themw I reset the ex perienee they would gain by their dealing with th. parties to wimea the resolutions referred, during the coming autumn, and then neat sessi o n they won'd be able to consider what terms might fairly, and with a prospect of success, be off red to the holders of stock generally, and then they might extend the operation over a wider sphere if the house should so decide. These were the reasons why he confined the pre sent proposal to these narrow limit., and he would now con clude by moving the first resolution. Mr. DISRAELI d.d not particularly object to the first resolution ; but with regard to the second, considered that the hove* should pause before entrusting a minister who had failed in his financial operations with the unlimited dia. station conferred by the chime. The first resolution was peeled. Mr. J. B. SMITH opposed the second resolution. He thought that the power of keeping open the negotiations, instead of paying the dissenting parties in money, would be mischievous sad unfair to the public creditor. Sir FITZROY KELLY expressed his intention to give every possible opposition to the moti ; his objections to which be pointed out in • long speech, which lasted till nearly six o'clock. The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER regretted that be had so time to reply; but said that be would do so in the sassing if permitted by the rules of the house. It befits now 4 o'clock, the house adjourned. The house resumed at six o'clock. THE AFRICAN MAIL CONTRACT STEAMERS. Mr. HOBSFALL begged to ask the First Lord of the Admiralty whether he had received any communicetion complaining of great irregularity in the delivery of letters by the African mail estates:it steamers, and whether any measures were being taken to prevent a recurrence of the same. Probably the right hon. gentleman was aware that the last steamer had neglected to call upon two of the principal trading ports which they were bound by their contract to visit. The lame thing had been complained of before. Sir J. ORAIIAM said he had overlooked the intention of the hon. gentleman to put the question; but he had not heard at the Beard of Admiralty of any special report of any failure of the kind mentioned by the hon. gentlemen. The board bed given a general notice to all the companies who were under contract to convey the mails that they (the Admiralty) would enforce a stricter observance of the tune than had been heretofore the case. Mr. HORSFALL remarked that this was net a com plaint of want of punctuality but of neglecting to call at the port at which the vessel was bound to stop. Sir J. GRAHAM added that no relaxation of the con tract with regard te the places at which vessels were bound to touch had been granted by the Admiralty. MAYNOOTH. Mr. SPOONER begged irToas h whether the COMIIIIIIIIO6 to inquire into the state of education at the College of Maynooth kid been issued ; and if NI, what were the names of the eotsutissioners? lard J. RUSSELL replied that no c imrnission had yet been appointed; bat certain names bad been under con templation. and a correspondence was going on upon the subject. He hoped that no wry long time would elapse before the commission were appointed. SOUTH SBA STOCK COMMUTATION BILL Tbc offiriblitiOft of the EACfIEQUER ti;el the further proceedings= this bill for 12 this day, to be fol lowed by the Assessed Taxes. CASE OF THE CONVICT SAMUEL JAMES. eked the Secretary f State for the Home Department which of the two sentences paned en Samuel James, this 'anent is now undergoing ; these muteness, namely, of ten yean, and of fifteen years, being stated to have been pronounced in the Middlesex As•istant- Judge's Court on the 23rd day of June, 18-52. Lord PALMERSTON said he had received a full report from the magistrates on the subject, but would content him self with stating shortly the facts of the case. The reasons for extending the sentence of the culprit were these. The prisoner, after his conviction, and being still in the dock, took a stone bottle out of his pocket, of sufficient size to be a formidable weapon, and uttering words of revenge hurled this bottle at the judge. It passed close by the eye of the latter and struck the back of the chair with such forte that even the rebound would have been sufficient to have pro duced serious consequences. The court thereupon delibe rated, and their decision, not upon the spot, but after full deliberation, was that the convict should be adjudged the longer period of transportation, the offence for which be had been convicted being one fur which he might have been transported for life. Now he (Lord Palmerston) must say that he thought the course pursued by the bench was per fectly right. (Hear, hear.) And had he been applied to as a minister of the crown for a remission of the sentence, he should have felt it his duty to refuse such r• mission, because it was manifest that if the judges were to perform their duties under the fear of personal danger—if they were to be threatened and struck with deadly miv.iles in open seen, we might as well repeal the laws and dissolve the NOM of justice, let every man go armed and shoot down radians of this dereriptioa wherever he met them. (Cheers.) Hanes we preserved security for our judges, the administra tine of 'tidies must fail, and the law of the land cease to be administered. THE CHARITABLE TRUSTS BILL. This bill wu flied by Lord J. ilJ;siii:friiiTesslay, 12 o'clock. INDIA BILL-THE SALT MONOPOLY. On the bringing up of the report, Sir J. PAKINOTON moved the insertion of the fol lowing clause :—" And whereas by the Act 3 and 4 William IV., hereinbefors recited, it was enacted, ' That the uid company shall with ail convenient speed, after the 22nd day of April, 1534, close their commercial buainess, and make sale of all their merchandise, stores, end effects, at horny and abroad, distinguished in their account books as corn• menial assets, end ell their warehouses, lands, tenements, sad hereditaments, and property whatsoever, which may not be retained for the purposes of government of the said territories, and get in ell debts due to them on account of the commercial broach of their affairs, awl 'team their commercial establishment, as the emu shall become an sereemary, and discontinee and abstain from all siimmeteiel basinets whish shall cot be incident to the closing of their actual erinobens, sad to the conversion into money of the property hereinbefore directed to be sold, or which shall not be carried en Ihr the purposes of thessid go-ernment :" And whereas the said East India Company have c intinued to carry on the manufacture and isle of silt, from the date of the said set to the present time, notwithstanding the aforesaid provision: And whereas it is expedient that the said salt monopoly should absolutely cease and determine : Be it enacted, that from and after the first day of May, 18.56, it shall be unlawful for the said East India Company to continue the manufacture of salt as at present carried on by them in the province of Bengal, and that such manu facture shall absolutely cease, whether carried en by the East India Company or on the account and under the control of the said company, and that the manufacture and sale of salt in India shall be absolutely free, subject only to such excise or other duties as may now or from time to time be levied upon such salt so manufactured." In moving the adoption of the clause the right hon. baronet appealed to the boos , and the government whether the time had not Colin for the abolition of the salt monopoly in India. (Hear, hear.) lie made this motion on no party ground, hut in consequence of the loud and lust c =plaints which had been made on the subject both inEngland and in India. Whether they considered it as a question of ab stract justice or of free trade principles, he thought it was a ease in which parliament had no option. (Hear, bear.) Balt was in every country • prime necessary of life, but in India it was pre-eminently so, where the diet of the people wail mainly a vegetable one. (Hear, hear.) It was enormously dear in I n di a , while the supply was unlimited in England. Why this incongruous state of thing. ? The answer was easy. The India Company held salt as a monopoly, and charged tke Natives a duty of 400 per cent. on too article. (Hear, bear.) That was his case ; and, with the permission of the house, he would prove it by evidence which even the Irempany could not dispute. lie had said, in the first place, that salt was exorbitantly dear ; and to prove it he would refer, in the first place, to the Calcutta licricw, a work of authority wi'h the company itself. According to a writer in that periodical, the company put the cost of ma nufacture at 80 rupees for the hundred remands, and had since added a duty which brought up the cost to 330 no.' pees for 100 issued., or 81. 10s. fur the English ton of salt. (Hear. hear.) This was the starting point; but them according to the review came the great iniquity of the system. The salt was bought up at Calcutta by large capitalist', who mired it with sand, and so it went through various hands, suffering successive adulteration' natal it reached the Hindus, village, where this mixture of salk mad, and ashes, was sold to the poor peasant at the rate et 251. sterling per ton. (Hear, hear.) With respect to the imported salt, it could be bought in Worcestershire at 10e. and Chester for 7s. per ton. It could be shipped at and, aiding 255. for freight and tramit ezpsnses, could be landed at Calcuttta at 21. per ton. To this, the company added a duty of 71. per ton, being' 1,400 per cent. on the first cost, and 300 per cent. on the landed price at Calcutta. (Hear, hear) It was then a tld in the same manner as the native article, adulterated with sand and ashes, at the rate of 25 to 40 per cent., and retailed to the unfortunate ryot at 25/. per ton. (Hear, hear.) He would now see how these charges affmted the condition of the natives of India. In England the consumption of salt wm 25Ibs. per head per annum ; in the United States, 27115. ; in Russia, '23llas. ; in Austria, 2dlhs. ; in Presets, 201bs. ; and he France, Belgium, and Holland, 211bs. What was the oensumption of India ? It was set down at 1211 m. per head ; but this, he believed, was only true of Bengal, and that if the average were taken of the three It would be found not c=reed 91b. per head ; and this in a country in which salt Maio Int necessary of life. (Hear.) The advocates of the emepany alleged in defence of this impost that the wages of a man in India were three rupees a week, and that the duty he paid on salt did not amount to more t h an his fair share of the burdens of the state, seeing that it was his only tax. The salt tax was then set down at rupees per bead; but in this calculation the men only were reckoned, whereas an average of five should lave been taken for each family. According to lie calculation the poor ryot was forced to give up two months labour every year to pay for this prime necessity of hie existence. The company's own witness (Mr. Halliday) admitted that the adulteration of salt in India was ex tremely injurious to health, and a book with which they were all familiar, " Dr. Graham's Domestic Medicine,' aid them how necessary was salt to the preservation of !mime health. Dr. Graham mentioned that in Holland eertain criminals were punished by being fed on bread with eat salt, and the consequence was that theydevoured worms minedered in their own stomachs. (Hear.) Every one earminted with India knew that worms were the prevail ing disease among the na•ives,and produced a debility which made them the easy victims of the dreadful cholera. (Hear.) Look at it again as it affected the trade of India. They saw how important were fisheries is Newfound- Mad to Sicily and other places, and they were assured th imexhaustable quantities of fish were taken on the c oasts Of India, but were used merely as manure, there 'wing no ea with which to cure it. Was it to be believe' that it was necessary for him now in 1853 to appeal to *1 friends and followers of the late Sir Robert Peel, the greet advocate of commercial freedom and the enemy of all CIS menial restrictions—was it to be believed that it was eery for him to appeal to the friends and followers of that statesman to put an end to a monopoly fatal to the welfare, the health, and the very lives of the people of India, and meet injurious to one important branch of the trade and shipplag of this country ? And how was he met ? Would i nog MO venture to stand up and in the abstract defend this Monopoly ? He believed not. (Hear, hear.) He was met May by the one argument of "money." Ile was told that the revenue of India could not dispense with the amount derived from thin salt monopoly—that right boo. gentlemen . epposite could not afford to bo just and act upon their own principles. (Hear, hear.) He had two answers to offer to that argument. His first answer was that they were governing India under a deep and heavy responsibility, and were not justified in the ros T! of God or man in raising a revenue by means so opp sad so injurious to the Indian people. (Hear, hear) Atsd hie ascend answer was, that in point of fact he did not W here the was at stake—(hear, hear)—at all evade he did not ask that the revenue should be abandoned, and he defied them to prove that the injury to the revenue was more than a question of degree. All ho asked them to do was to adopt a combined system of excise and customs duties. The President of the Beard of Control had occupied five hours with his proposals for the (uteri ent of India, and he enlarged principally ea ills T ni elvantsges and benefits which the people of India had derived from the government of the East India Company. But they had no right to make that boast so keg IS they left the people victims to elephantiasis and other diseases arising from the want of this necessary of life, which they as a paternal government should put within their reach, and so long as they were wanting in this, one of their first duties to India, he should invite them to defend this monopoly, which he believed could not be defended, and in the name of the people of India he demanded its repeal. (Cheery.) Sir C. WOOD thought if the right hon. gentleman had concluded by calling on the house to repeal the duty in the name of the people of Molt Witch it would have been more consistent with his arguments. (Hear, hear.) Among the many anomalies and contradictions which had occurred in this Indian debate there were few so great as those brought forward by the right hon. gentleman. It was somewhat amusing to hear the right hon. gentleman calling on God and man against the imposition of a duty on the food of the people, a right hon. gentleman who had so long advocated duties on corn, sugar, and other articles ot food, now called on them by their principles of morality, and in the name of God and man to cease maintaining • duty on a single article of necessity. During the whole session they had heard the right hon. gentleman arguing against adding to direst taxation, for the purpose of removing duties on articles of consumption, and now there being only one duty on necessaries in India, he called on tke house at all hazards to repeal it. The right hon. gentleman had got hold of the word " monopoly, and he had continued all through his speech to din it in their NM. There was no monopoly so far es the consumer was con cerned, for there were at least five different sources com peting for the supply, the duty on all being equal, namely, the manufactory above mentioned, that imported from England and Bombay, that brought from the North Western Provinces, and that belonging to the company. And that was called a monopoly, as regarded the consumer in India. The right hon. gentleman drew a frightful pic ture of the consequences of a want of salt. It would have been as well if be bad shown that there was any want of salt. (Oh !) Hon. gentlemen might say "Oh !' but was there any evidence which justified his saying that the people of India suffered from the want of salt, or that the duty was a heavy charge upon them ? The right hon. gentleman had quoted "Graham's Domestic Medicine ;" and stated what had happened to some prisoners in the Dutch gaols: and be said that all that might happen to the people of India. Bat there was no evidence that this was the state of things in any part of India. There was evidence, how ever, on the point: fur if the right honourable gentleman had referred to the evidence before the committee of 1330, he would have found that they had before them a report of the Bengal Revenue Board. They went into the subject, and ascertained the quantities of salt consumed. That re port stated " that inquiries had been made with regard to the household of a native landowner possessed of two lace of rupees or 20,0001. a year, and the average consumption was found to be 12Ibs. per head, and they consumed as much as they desired. If it had been found that amono the poor the consumption decreased, the inference would have been that the price placed it beyond their reach ; but inquiries did not elicit that fact, but, on the contrary, it was proved that the average consumption of the lowest clam was as great as that of the highest, to whom the price would have been no object." If, therefore, in the household of a Hindoo gentleman, with 20,0001. a year, to whom the price was no object, etch person consumed only 121 b. per annum, the average could not be much less among the whole population. It was not extraordinary that the consumption of salt in India was so low as compared with this country. In the first place meat was never salted in India. The right hon. gentleman had stated that in Aus tria the average consumption was lilb. a head. sad, consi dering the quantity of salt meat cured in colder climates, the proportion of 121 h. • head in India was not a small one. He (Sir C. Wood) thought he hod established that it was not in the name of the people of India that the right hon. gentleman ought to adjure the house to repeal this duty. But the effect of the clause pro• posed by the right hon. gentleman would not be to reduce the duty. He had caked on the house to put an end to that which did not exist —namely, a monopoly of the East Intl* Company. Within the last seven or eight years the government of India had reduced the duty on salt 'Li per cent The motion of the right hon. member (Sir J. Pokington) would only enforce the goverantent of India to estah!ista an excite THE EXPRESS, FRIDAY EVENING, JULY 29, 1853. o,eos In Neu of the present mode of collecting ee . This Weald °awe very great distress to those who ob tained their living under the present system, as well as • large increase is the costs of the preventive smite. But did the house mean to say that the duty upon salt ought to be repealed altogether? There had been some evi dence upon that subject, the general tenor of which was that the pressure of the salt duty was not complained of in India, and the witnesses examined I could give no satisfactory substitute for it; on the contrary, all of them said, "do not attempt to impose a new tax upon Hlnduetan." The right hon. gentleman (Sir J. Pakington) complained that the present mode of raising revenue excluded, or sr. least materially diminished, the importation of salt. It he would refer to the case of Bom bay he would find that, although there the duty is raised by means of an excise, not one pound of English salt had been imported into that presidency. Therefore it was not the method of levying the tax in Bengal, that prevented the importation of salt. He (Sir C. Wood) trusted that the house would reject this measure, inasmuch as no monopoly existed, and as it was better that it should be left to the Indian government to collect the revenue necessary for its purposes, in the manner which experience showed was the best adapted to the exigencies of the country over which it ruled. (Hear, hear.) Mr. J. O. I'HILLIMORE said even admitting all that had been said against the Indian populati m, admitting that they ought to be treated as mere hewers of wood and drawers of water, aed that justice ought not to be taken into consideration, he would ask the house to consent to this motion, and to abolish • system which it was not only un just, but Ilse unprofitable to retain. (Cheers.) _ _ air J. W. HOGG was glad that this question had been brought before the house,and he thought that if the question itself were alone kept in view, it was one which admitted of* very simple solution. It should be remembered that • great change had taken place since 1831. Ile had always said, and he said still, that the company, before that time, had a monopoly. It was • monopoly. not only of production but also of sale. Nobody could make salt but the company; nobody could sell salt but the company; and nobody could import salt except at a duty which the com pany imposed, and which amounted practically to an ex clusion of all foreign salt. His right hen. friend said, "Reduce the duty on salt, and confer • benefit on the mer chants of this country." lie (Sir J. Hogg) said, 'educe the duty in consideration of the people of India. Now the tax bad been reduced three times. It was an axiom of political economy, that if they reduced a tax on en article of prime necessity, the consumption would be so increased that the revenue would soon oe made up. With regard to the first, second, and the third reductions, that axiom had proved tree ; bat after the fourth and last reduction there had been no increase of consumption, and therefore they might, if they were to draw a conclusion from • maxim of political economy, say that the reduction had gone far enough. lie was disposed to think, however, that that was only partially true, and that the consumption would still increase, and the moment the revenue reached its former figure, he trusted the opportunity would be takea to again reduce the tax. Salt was a necessary of life, and in India peculiarly so ; but by the use of curries and chilies and other condiments the consumption of salt was decreased, and 12th.. a head he thought was a fair allowance. It Ss poys were allowed 401bs. a bead, that was new to him. Tte hon. baronet then quoted the evidence of Mr. Halliday, that in Bengal the tax on salt amounts to about Sil. • year, and that the earnings of a ryot were from two to three rupees a month. It would be much easier and simpler, no doubt, to raise the whole revense derived from salt by means of an import duty. The only objection was that that would ruin the native manufacturer. The government discontinued the manufacture in certain districts and continued it in cheaper districts, and Mr. Hal liday said the mulled were assailed by petitions, and the people said they were in the greatest possnle distress from being deprived of the manufacture. It was said that the English salt was a great deal better than the native manufactured salt. Well, then, so far there was a discriminating duty in favour of English salt. If they deprived the native manufacturer of salt of his trade they deprived him of his livelihood, for be had no other means of obtaining it. lie stood then as the advocate of free trade in salt in India. (A laugh.) Surely it was the principle of free trade to levy an import duty which was not more than the excise duty. He should be glad to see the day when there was no duty at all on salt in India ; but when that day came he believed there would not be an ounce of salt imported iato India. this was • very objectionable tax, but all taxes were objectionable, and where would they get a better ? One of the witnesses was asked if they migat not abolish it by putting a tax off per cent. on imported manufactures. But what would the English manufacturers say to that? Mr. Halliday sad he' did not believe they could raise an equal amount in any other way with so little detriment to the country, aid Mr. Marshmani who knew India well, gave similar testimony. But the right hon. gentleman said, " Why not adopt the system of excise ? " He (Sir J. W. Hogg) should be glad to see that plan tried ; but he bad always hesitated to press his views on the subject in opposition to those of gentlemen who had had more experience than himself. Still Se en tirely concurred in the recommendation of Mr. Halliday to try the experiment in some districts. (Hear, hear.) He hoped he had now reduced the question to a very narrow compass, namely, whether the company had or Sid not faithfully carried out the recommendations of the committee of 183 e ? If they had, then he. really must contend that whatever comments might have been made epos them, they bad established and voted upon a system of free trade. (Cheers.) Mr. W. T. EGERTON had always imagined that the argument of the hon. gentleman end his party was, that the reduction of a duty was an advantage to both the consumer sad the producer; because it left a larger surplus for either the necessaries or the luxuries of life. On that ground, too, he thought the bon. baronet ought not to op• pose the motion. At all events, he hoped the house would consent to the very moderate proposition of his right hon. friend. (Cheerea Sir H. HADDOCK was an advocate fur the gradual re : ductioa of the duty. Mr. ADDEILLEYsaid his inclinations werevery strongly in favour of Sir J. Pekin:v.ll's motion, and it seemed to him that, as compared with the male in which the govern ment and the Indian directory lied met the question, the right bon. gentleman had had the best of the argument. Still the hon. baronet might have grounded his ease upon an ar gument that would have been perfectly unanswerable, and that would prevent hint (Mr. Adderley) from voting for the motion. Ho might have argued that, whatever the merits of the question, this was not the place in which to deal with the taxes of India. (Cheers.) If the House of Com mons were to suffer itself to meddle with the financial ar rangements of India, they would be doing that which would ultimately bring about the ruin of that country. Na poleon had once said to Talleyrand, that if the facilities of communication should ever lead England to deal with the internal affairs of India, she would soon lose it alto gether; and the truth was that, whether the form of the Indian government were constitutional or despotic, it must, to be efficient, be local. (Hear, hear.) To go no furt'ver than this case, how long would it be before parlia ment would take the trouble to fill up the vacuum in the Indian finances that might be caused by the motion ? Or, again, they might throw whole classes out of employment by this very deceitful motion. (Hear, hear.) On these grounds he should vote against the proposition of the right hon. gentleman. (Cheers.) Mr. HUME entirely agreed with the right hon. gentleman, except that he could not allow that the house ought not to give its atteirion to the taxation of India. (Hear, hear.) Mr.DANBY SEYMOUR admitted that this was not a mo , nopoly as regarded England and foreign countries, but it was so as regarded the natives of India. Their petitions showed that they felt it as such. Sir C. Wood had said that no complaints had been made by the natives; in disproof of this, he would refer to the evidence given before the com mittee. The cost of manufacturing the article on the spot was literally nothing ; hence the tem ptations _ to fraud were great. This being a new tax in the Punjaub, it would add to our unpopularity in that country; he knew not whether it was extended to Scinle. For all these reasons, he should vote with the right hon. baronet. Mr. LOWE sail there bad been so much declamation on the subject, that there was danger of the house losing sight of the question on which they were about to vote. The ' right hon. baronet's motion recited the clause of the last act declaring that the company should not continuo to carry on business, except for the purposes of government; he then said that the manufacture of salt was still carried on; but this was only carried on for the purpose, of govern ment. (" Hear, hear," and "No, no.") If it were otherwise, the directors ought to be prosecuted for a breach of the law ; there was no necessity for • maw law. Either it was within the law or not; if it was, it was useless to recite an irrelevant law ; if it was not, the directors ought to be proceeded against for a breach of the law. He denied that the com pany had any monopoly, which meant an exclusive pri vilege of selling. At all events, they had no odious mono poly. It only amounted to this, that, in ceder to raise an additional revenue, the company had placed an import duty of id. per pound on salt; in another district had imposed an excise duty; and in another had advanced money to cer tain persons to enable them to manufacture salt, and pur chased the salt at a fixed price. This was what was called an odious monopoly; but the company gained nothing by it, and could gain nothing by' it. If they increased the price, they could not compete with the foreign importers of salt. Were they to attempt to get a high price for manu facturing salt, they would injure their own revenue. Ex cept for the sake of preventing the psor persons engaged in the manufacture, the company had no other interest in keeping it up. The right hon. baronet's proposirion would not lighten the hardens of the people of India in the least; at would leave matters exactly as it found them, with the exception of leading the house to intrude into details of which they knew nothing. Whilo they thought they were philosophising on free trade and the rights of man, they would do nothing more than inter fere with a fiscal arrangement of India of the propriety of which they could not judge. (Hear, hear.) Great Indian authorities differed on the propriety of keeping up the revenue by an excise duty or by this monopoly, as it was called; and as he had not the advantage of that intuitive knowledge of Indian affairs which some hon. members seemed to possess, he would not venture an opinion on the question. It was said the import of English salt was increasing with giant stri !es: was it wise then to interfere with the arraneements of the Indian government, and force them to abandon a system which secured a fair and equal competition between the native manufacturers and those of England ? Let the right hon. baroaet the member lar Dr;itwich consider how far this would be as advantage to his eon stiteents. If this were a monop.ily, what was to be said of the law which prevented the growth of tobacco in this coustry ? It was not done I. punish tobacco smokers, but to aware • . (Hear, bear.) to conclusion, he warned hon. members against being blinded by the supposed interests of their own coasti tozenU, and led into a position which might Whet serious injury on the interests of India. (Load cries of " Divide.") Mr. JOHN MACGREGOR said the case was essentially different from that of the growth of tobacco in this country. But looking at the question as one affecting the financial system of India, he thought the proposition of the right hon. baronet would be extremely dangerous to the good government of India at the present moment. Ile should vote against it; but he did so entirely differing from the financial views of the hon. member for Kidderminster. Mr. BLACKETT said that he and other members had been charged with nresumption and interference by Mr. Lowe, whose definition of monopoly ought to make bun recant bit opinions on the corn laws—(hear)—but the fact was the question had been prejudged 20 years ago. The government of that day had declared their opinion that the salt tax ought to be got rid of as early as pouiblu ; sad the same feeling was expect/fed on behalf of the company. Parliament thereupon agreed to leave the abolition of the fax to the discretion of the Indian government. Lord J. RUSSELL said that, before the house divided, he wished to say • few words as to the extraordinary us ture of the step recommended by the right hon. baronet. Though hie speech was• speech entirely against the tax on salt, his amendment did not touch that question. flail he proposed to abolish the salt tax in this country, he (Lord J. Russell) might have been convinced by his arguments; but, attar a long speech against the vicious and pernicious nature of a salt tax, he proposed to leave it where it was, with this exception—that he would not allow it to be levied as the Indian government thought fit, but would in terfere with the mode in which it was levied, and say that it should no longer be levied by the mode of manufacturing. Supposing the house to agree to this motion, they would by no means get rid of the salt tax of India—th e y would not get rid of what was called a monopoly, but which his hon. friend near him hail complete ly proved was no monopoly. There was one very important point which it behoved the house to consider. The Indian government in the exercise of its discretion, presided over at present by a stable lord who was certainly as conversant with matters of trade and commerce as any man who had ever gone out as Oovernur-General if India—thought that the best mode of raising the revenue of India was partly be a salt tax, and that the best mode of raring that salt tax was by the manu facture in Bengal being in the hinds of the government. It had been sad frequently in the course of the debate that we were responsible fur any deficiency that might occur in the Indian revenue. Ito had never rubscribed to that "pinion. Ile thought the opinion was entirely unfounded. Ha thought that the proprietors of India stock must look for their dividends out of the territorial revenues of Ind's, and that they had no claim upon the funds of England in case of any deficiency in those revenues. But the case would bo totally _ altered if the house came to a vote with the right hon. baronet. (Hear, bear.) if they said—" There shall he no longer a revenue of two millions, raised in the mode in which the Indian government with all its discretion, end aided by the most experienced men, has thought fit"—how could they tell what would be the consequence? They knew that the Excise duty on tilt occasioned a great deal of vexation, was subject to much evasion, and was found so oppressive that the revenue from it very often fell short of what was expected. Suppose that to be the case; a fter this resolution was affirmed mad sent to India, suppose that there should be a deficiency of a million in the salt-tax. Who would be responsible? Would it be the Indian government? Would the Indian government be bound to lay on new taxes to supply the deficiency of a million which the vote of the House of Commons had caused ? (Hear, hear.) No ; for they could then lay, fur the first time with justice, that the deficiency had been caused by the vote of the House of Commons. They would say—"Do not let us impose new taxes; that would be to oppress the people. We will not ask the House of Commons to supply the deficiency which the house alone has caused." (Hear, hear.) Ile hoped that before the house voted the proposition of the right hon. baronet—before they indulged his constituents with the prospect of better days—they would consider that as this was a subject which afficted India, it was far better that they should not set the example of regulating the finances of Indic, with their own information, which, after all, must be very imperfect, but would leave this great and important subject in the hands ofthe government of India, to be dealt with by them as they thought fit. Mr. DISRAELI said the noble lord had said that if this was a motion to repeal the tax on salt in India, ho would Dave voted for it. Lord J. RUSSELL—In England. Mr. DISRAELI thought the noble lord had brought an accusation against the right hon. baronet that there was an inconsistency between his speech and his motion. The noble lord said the speech was a speech for the repeal of the salt tax in India, and he agreed that it was so, but that the motion was in fact not fur a repeal of the tas, but for an alteration in the mode of levying it. Therefore he had a right to draw the inference that the noble lord did ap prove the proposal for the repeal of the salt tax, but was not prepared to support the motion of the right hon. baronet. The noble lord's argument was, that if the resolution were carried, it would not be a repeal of the salt tux, which was so odious and injurious. (Hear, hear.) But the right hon. baronet's intention was not to diminish the amount derived from the tax, but to di ?troy the monopoly. The observa tions of the noble lord had not at all answered that propo sition. He could not agree with the noble lord as to the I difference he had so strongly laid down between the revenue of England and the revenue of ludia. The leader of the Rouse of Commons had told them that he recognised no identity between the revenue of England and the revenue of India. (Hear, hear.) Was that the opinion of those colleagues of the noble lord who were proud to be the dis ciples of Sir Robert Peel ? (Hear, hear.) That was not the opinion of Sir Robert Peel. Many of them had heard that great authority on financial subjects say in that house that he could not (or a moment ackuowledge that there was any difference between the revenue of England and the revenue of India. (Hear,hear.) And it was the state of the finances of India on which he based oue of his particular arguments for proposing the property and income tax; and he asked whether any one could suppose that embarrassment in Indian finances must not ultimately in its consequences be borne by the revenues of this country. Until the noble lord announced his want of agreement in that financial doctrine, he bad heard no authority in that house profess en opposi:e opinion. lle did not agree with the noble lord in that opinion, but thought that the misfortunes of India mutt ultimately fall upon England. But the question they had to consider was this—the government of India was about to be settled, pro bably for 20 years, and the question was whether they should or should not attempt to reform a fiscal arrange ment which pressed heavily on the people of India. If the salt monopoly was injurious, and if the action of the British parliament was necessary, at what moment better than the present could it be benight under their attention ? (Hear, hear. He could not hut admire the confidence with which the hon. member for Ki lderminster approached the ques tion ; it was edifying to see a free trader at bay. (Cheep.) The hon. member fought gallantly in perilous circumstances, and read the house a lecture, not merely on Indian legisla tion but on legislation in general. (A laugh.) He had told them that the case of tobacco in this country was strictly analogous to that of salt in India, but he had for gotten that the manufacture of salt was permitted, in Eng land the growth of tobacco was forbidden. (Mr. Lowe— Where's the monopoly ?) He was not aware that he had used the word. The honourable and learned member had experience of popular assemblies elsewhere, where interruptions in debate were often more frequent than agreeable. (Cheers.) But the question was that if the state of the law was wrong, was there any time at which it could be more successfully dealt with than the present ? He had heard no argument to show that the fiscal regulations respecting salt in India were not the greatest evil that could possibly exist. Let the house consider what it was tr have a whole people in a chronic state of bad health. (Hear.) His right hon. friend bad been sneered at as merely representing the interests of his constituents while seeming to advocate a great principle, but be would ask the members for Stockport or for Lan cashire would they have felt the force of that argument when advocating the Tel eat of the corn-laws? (Hear, hear.) He trusted thee that the house would decide on the broad merits of the question. A certain system had prevailed in India for a loug time with respect to the manufacture of the first necessary of life ; that system was admitted to be an un merited evil, and the question was whether the house would I find a remedy. The house divided— For the Clause ll7 Against lO7-10 The clause was then added to the bill. Mr. BLACKEIT moved to add the following dame : " That the President of the Board of Control, or in his alownee some other member of her Majesty's government, soould in every session make • statement to the House of Commons on the enhjeet of Indian financel7,on some day to the presentation of the annual Indian accounts." His object was to make the pledge which had been given by the President of the Board of Control binding instead of leaving it to the discretion of whoever might happen to lid that office. The clause was agreed to, Sir H. MADDOCK proposed the following clause :- 0 Whereas the territories of British India are a portion of the donnuions of the British Crown, and the math.. and European inhabitants thereof are her Majesty's subjects, the government of the said t, rritoriee as carried un in loth', and the administration of justice therein, shall, from and after the ',Living of this act, be in the name of her Ma. justy, her heirs, and successors, and all public acts of the government of India shall lie done and executed by the Governor• General in Council, in the name of her Majesty, her heirs, and successors." The clause was negatived without a division. Sir C. WOOL) then ruse to bring forward two clauses, regulating the qualification and salaries of the directory. It seemed to be generally thought desirable that the quali fication of all the directors, whether elected or nominated, should be the same ; and it was necessary to give the nomi nated electors a qualification, or they could not act as the officers of the company. He proposed to reduce the qualiti cation from 2,000/. to 1.0001., which was to be possessed by all the directors. whether nein.nated or elected. Mr. BLACKETT thought the proposition war a depar ture from the noderstanding entered into with the hon. member for Manshester, who was now absent, that no quali fication WAS to be require u from the directors. Sir C. WOOD eselamed that he had given notice of his intent.on of louring the clause, and the directors could not take office as the officers of the compauy unless they held I a qualiticati n. Mr. BLACKETT said he could not answer that the boo. member for Manchester would not move, on the third reading, to expunge the clause. The clause was then agreed to. Sir C. WOOD said he hot original!y proposed that the salaries of the directors should be 500/. a year, but it was objected that they were too small, and that competent men would not take the office at so smell a sal..ry. The directors whom he had spoken to, however, seemed to prefer a small remuneration es a kind of "honorarium," rather than • salary. It had also been objected that the salaries were not fixed in the bill. Ho now pro;.osed to add a clause to the bill fixing the salary of the directors at 1,000/. a year, and the chairman and deputy chairman at E.)001. a year. The house went into cosiimit•ce upon the clause. Upon the mown to flit up the blank with the words "one thousand five hundred pounds," Mr. J. G. I'HILLIMUItIi complained that a large tax should be laid upon the revenues of the people of India a without due notice to the members of the hou se . S o int portant a question ought h ot to be hurri e d o v e r a t th a t Ihour. (It was then a quarter past I o'clock ) Mr. THOIINELY also objected to the committee going on with this question. If it were persevered in he should move that the salary of the cheirmin be 1,0001., and those of the directors 500/. per annum. Ile should prefor, how ever, that further time should be given to the house to consider the question, and he therefore moved that the chairman report progress. (Hear, hear.) Mr. HUTCHINS certainly thought the clause ought rot to be pressed ; if it were he should move that it be ex pugned urea the third reading. Lord J. RUSSELL said that if there existed a wish for further time to consider this question, the government were quite ready to consider the clause upon the third reading. He would, theretore, yield to tho wish of the honeurabie gentleman (Mr. Thornely). The CHAIRMAN then reported progress. Lord J. RUSSELL had no objection to the statement being made, but what he objected to was its being made im perative by act of parliament. (Hear, hear.) Mr. DISRAELI suggested that the accounts shonld be mode up in pounds sterling, and not in sicca rupees. (" Hear, hear," and a laugh.) The clause was then put and negatived. Mr. WIGRAM moved to add the fallowing clause : " No law or regulation made by the Governor-General in Council under the powers of the atvtute 3 and 4 Will. IV., c. Bi, a. 43, shall be invalid by reason only that the same affects any prerogative of the crown, provided such law or regulation shall hays received the previous sanction of the crown, sig nified under the royal sign manual of her Majesty, counter signed by the President of the Board of Commissioners for the Affairs of India." Sir C. WOOD had no objection to the clause, and it was accordingly added to the bill. Mr. WIGRAM moved a second clause, vie.: "All fines and penalties incurred by the sentence or order of any court of justice within the territories under the government of the East India Company, and all forfeitures for crimes of any real or personal estate within the said territories, and all real and personal estate w.thin the said territories. escheating or lapsing for wart of an heir or successor, and all property within the acid territories devolving as bona rocaolks for want of n rightful owner, shall (as part of the revanues of India) belong to the East India Company, in trust fur her Majesty, for the service of the government of India; provided also, that the Glvt rnor-General in council, and any other person or persons who mty be authorised by any aet passed in that behalf by the Governor-Oeneral in council, shall have power (in cases where the same may appear imitable and proper) to make any grant or disposi lion of any property , so accruing by forfeiture, escheat, or otherwise, to or in favour of any relative or connexion of the person from whom the same shall have accrued, or to or in favour of soy other person or persons." THE LATE SITTIRGS. Mr. BROTllElailiimo:ecithattheh;use do now ad journ. lie might be allowed to soy that he had ■b•taiaed from interfering to protest against tke long sittings which had taken place lately, heenu-e he bad considered that he might as well attempt to stop time as to prevent the house sitting until an early hour in the morning. Ho had now for the last 20 years endeavoured to bring the house to ob serve reasonable hours—(cheers)---sut it was now beyond his strength. lie did hope, however, that next session some measure would be adopted in order to prevent such long sittings ; he should certainly he in favour of the adjourn ment at a more reasonable hour. If, however, the resolution were come to be wr,uld recommend those gentlemen who represented the (death estate to shut their books at twelve o'clock and leave the house. They had now sat fifteen hours and a half. It was possible. to sit for twelve hours; but, when they came to fifteen or sixteen hours, it was more than human nature could bear. (The hon. member did not press his motion.) ENTRY OF SEAMEN BILL. The bill was read a third time and passed. DUTIES ON HORSES LET FOR HIRE BILL. This bill passed through committee. HACKNEY CARRIAGE DUTIES BILL. The house went into committee o; this bill. Mr. LOWE brought up a clause, the effect of which he stated would be, that wl.ereas at present for any number of persons exceeding two only one .ixpence was chargeable for the whole lot, this clause would make them liable to pay sixpence each. A number of persons waited on his hon. friend (Mr. Fitzroy) ou Monday, when this was promised to them. Ile mentioned this in order that it might be known that they bad not agreed to it in consequence of what had occurred since. Sir D. NORREYS asked Low it was, if this was not an after-thought, that it was not menti•ned before. The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER said his hats. friend (Mr. Fitzroy) was absent from ill health, but the view of his hon. friend was that as the public was likely to have a contest with these persons for some days, it was most desirable that the views and demands of thows who wire now endeavouring to practise on the public should not be conceded—(cheers)—and the view of his hon. friend was, that they (the house) should put themselves entirely in the right—that everything that was rigi.t should be done before they ex thittd a determination co: to ac cede to the demands which were made upon them. This was not an after-thought in consequence of the occurrences of the day, but his hots. friauti, on consideration, did think that in strictness the clause wee required as a matter of jus tice ; but after this enactment no coneessiun,great or small, would be acceded to. (Cheers.) Sir J. V. SHELLEY could corroborate the statement that I this was not an after thought. Ile was present when a de putation waited on his hon. friend, and the whole of %MI which was now inserted in the clause was put before the deputation, before the strike to.ds place. After what had occurred out of doors, he sincerely hoped her Majesty's government would not give way. (Cheers.) As a metro.- politan member, he was very anxious to meet any just de mand which the cab proprietors might have, but the die eumstances in which they now appeared before the house wire very materially altered by the course they had pursued. Ile thought the dignified course to pursue now was to look on these men as entirely out of court, and then let them go on the stamls agtain ; and then if they peti tioned the house for the redress of any grivance parliament would be disposed to meet them. . _ _ Mr. SPOCINHIL quite agreed with the right hon. gentle man (Mr. Gladstone) as to the question of justice. lie was not one of those who thought they ought to have fixed the fares without evidence as to what the fares should be. His opinion was that it was not just to re quire them to go for a sixpenny fare at all. It was impossible for a man to get a fair profit, to live out of such a charge. The argument was, that they would ' have so many more fares ; that was a very good argument when they were dealing with machinery, but here there was an additional horse to find, and the expense of carry ing more fares would ba very much in ratio to the amount received. Another clause which he thought would be per ' fectly just, was a clause providing that there should be no sixpenny fare—(" No, no," and " hear, hear")—but a fare of Is. for all distances under two milce. Sixpence was too little for the accommodation provided. . _ Mr. GROGAN said it wax a misfortune arising from the baste with which the clause was brought in that many hon. gentleman did not understand it. As he' understood the matter, in every case in which more than two perams were conveyed there was to be sixpence for each additional per son. lie did not object to the extra sixpence ; but was there any limit as to number ? Mr. LOWE said the cabs were licensed to carry two, but were not limited to that slumber. Mr. FItEWEN thought that if the proposed alteration were made then the huuge would be in fact submitting to the cab proprietors. (Eleer ' bear.) It was notorious that it was not the small but the lar.;e proprietors who had set the whole thing a-going. Many small proprietors would bring their cabs to the stand were it not for opposition. (Hear, hear.) Ile hoped the quegion would be postponed uati the cabs had been brought out again; after which, he had no doubt the government wined entertain any reasonable proposal to modify the existing law. Mr. MAGUIRE hoped the government would do some thing to prevent cab proprietors from again combining again,t the public. (Hear, hear.) Mr. GARDNER thought that the regulation of cab fares in London should be left to the Secretary of State for the Home Department, in the same manner as in Dublin it was left to the Lord Lieutenant and the Recorder. Mr. F. SCULLY wished to know whether the 6d. extra was to be for the whole distance, or for each mile ? Mr. LOWE—For the whole distance, Mr. O'BRIEN said that if the Irish cab proprietors had acted as the London proprietors had done they would have being called revalutionists. (Hear, hear.) Ile called upon the government not to submit to clamour. The only grievance under which the proprietors laboured had respect to back fares ; and he was sure that if they came to the: Under Secretary of State fur the Home Drpartmeet, they would be met by him in a proper spirit. (Hear.) Mr. LOCKE agreed, with the hon. member for North Warwickshire that justice should be done notwithstanding what had passed. (lieu, hear.) Ile did not believe the existing scale of fares was ono which was calculated to alf.ud a fair remuneration, and he entertained a strong opinion that before such a large reduction was made the cab proprietors should have been heard before a committee, Lord D. STUART lamented the clamour on this subject as much as any one, and had no doubt.that those who would ultimately suffer the greatest loss were those who had originated the present strife. Ile thought the cab pro prietors were ill advised in taking the comae that they had done ; but. on the other hand, he must remind the house that they had brought all this inconvenience and annoy ance on themselves and the public by the haste with which they bad hurried on the bill, and by refusing a com mittee of inquiry. Had a committee been appointed. all the details would have been properly examined. He had never entered on the question of fares. His opposition to the bill had reference to appeal, the granting and withholding of licenses, and other matters of that kind. The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER sell the house had not then under its consideration the question of the existing flres. He must remark, however, that if the legislation with regard to sixpenny fares were reversed, he should beg to withdraw his proposal with regard to the remission of six or eight ar.d twenty thousand • year. (Rear, hear.) Ile understood that the deputation which went to the llome Department had net preened for that. They must all feel that it was exceedingly desirable that the pleura state of things should be brought to an ends