The Press. — London, England, 1853-07-30 00:00:00

JULY 30, 1853. provision of certain powers, to take the shape of re• monstrance or protest, and to be lodged in the mem bers of the secr.•t committee, as regarded the orders of the PreSident of the Board of Control. His object was to restrain the practice of waging war in India, and lie contended that, without some precautionary cheeks, the President would possess powers, under the new system, more practically despotic even than those he held before. Mr. HruE approved of this amendment, antici pating that it would restrain the increase of debt, as well as the undertaking of war. He enlarged upon the injustice and anomaly of holding the Leadenhall street directors responsible for acts regarding which they were not asked even for their opinions. Sir J. W. Hoot; contended that every order, let what might be its source or authority on this side, should be promulgated throughout India solely in the name of the directors. Under the existing sys tem, the secret committee had the power of inter fering, should orders be issued which were not in accordance with law. He advanced, however, various reasons for not agreeing with the proposition now made by Sir R. Willoughby. The Government was responsible for the tranquillity of India, and he could not consent that the secret committee should have the power of remonstrance. Power and responsibility must always rest in the same hands. As matters stood, there was nothing to impede the President of the Board of Control in availing himself of the ex perienee and information of the secret committee. Mr. DISRAELI, referring to the assertion that the home Government was responsible for the 'peace of India, inquired whether the Court of Directors were to retain the power of recalling the Governors- General ? Sir .1. W. Hoot; offered sonic explanations, and Sir C. Wool) stated that the arrangements tinder which the directors held the power to recal a Governor- General would not be disturbed. Mr. Misoi.Es coincided with the amendment, so far as to think it advisable that the secret committee should express some opinion respecting the orders which they were compelled to sign and send out to India. _ _ . • T The amendment, after some more debating, was negatived by 72 votes to 30. An amendment, moved by Mr. HUME, who wished to extend the electoral privileges to all holders of India Stock to the amount of 500!. or upwards, was also negatived by a majority of 74 to 54. Mr. RICH moved a clause providing for the more certain employment of qualified natives. Sir H. Mannoca adverted to the great inc; ease which of late years had taken place in the employ ment of natives, and was for proceeding with caution, lest the service should become deteriorated. Mr. Batton' described the natives as becoming discontented with the present difficulties in the way of their employment, and with the inadequacy of their remuneration when employed. Sir C. Woon condemned these statements of Mr. Bright es being much exaggerated. He maintained that the duly qualified native had, and would continue to have, every opportunity for employment. On a division the clause was negatived by 173 to 47. At Tuesday's sitting of the committee, Mr. J. l'ittwitotte moved the insertion of a clause, the effect of which was the establishment of a tri bunal in India for the purpose of deciding upon and taking cognisance of any disputes that might arise be tween the Government of British India and any na tive prince not a British subject, and to interpret dis puted treaties. He declared such a clause necessary for the protection of the native princes against the cold-blooded tyranny of the Company. Mr. Lowe believed that such a tribunal, if created, would prove, highly prejudicial, and even dangerous, to the British rule in India. He contended, moreover, that its establishment would be found impracticable. In the following debate much was said respecting past instances of oppression with which the Company had been charged towards the Rajahs of Sattara and Coorg, and the Ameers of Scinde. The motion was finally negatived without a division. Mr. BRIGHT moved a clause providing that the business of the Board of Control and the Court of Directors should be transacted in one anti the same building. He dwelt upon the enormous expense at tending the home establishments, which the adoption of his proposal would diminish, by facilitating the reduction of the staffs, while, by affording the means of carrying on the business of the two departments by word of mouth, it would curtail the amount of " stu pid" einTespondence between them. Sir C. Woon said if the establishment of the Board of Control were altogether retrenched the saving would not exceed 20,000/. ; but, as the principle of the double government had been sanctioned by the house, there must be two establishments. He denied that any inconvenience or practical delay resulted from their separation, and thought the matter would be better left to the authorities themselves. The clause was rejected, upon a division, by 74 against 61. answers to this argument. In the first place, he would tell them that they were governing India tinder a deep and heavy responsibility, and that they were not justified in the sight of tiod or man IH raising a revenue by oppressing and injuring the people of India. (Ilear, hear.) His second answer was. that 111 point of tart he believed the revenue not to be at stake, and that at all events tlne injury to it would be only a question of degree. All he asked them to do was, to adopt a combined Ppitem of excise and customs duty ; in !tomboy th e y had already got a eon blued system of excise and customs duty in regard to salt, which answered well there, and there was no reason why a combined system of the same kind might not be made to answer equally well in Itengal. If he succeeded in his motion, he eontemplated, as a necessary corms (menet., that the duties should be lowered. In his opinion they ought to be lowered, and the natives of India ought to b' no longer exposed to au exorbitant ch.rge of 3t)4) or 411 t) per vent.- Sir C. WOOO insinuated that the motion was made more in the interests of Cheshire constituents than of the Indian population. It was, he suspected, another instance of fighting on behalf of British ',mincers upon a distant field of battle. There was no tttttt opoly, in the odious sense of that word, en • joyed by the Company. They raised their revenues in great measure fr►m salt, and the existing arrange ments did but constitute the peculiar mechanism by which the impost wax levied. 'the natives paid a salt tax (and it was almost the only tax they were called on to pay) in that manner. As to the alleged detieieney in the supply, he denied the fact, citing some evidence which showed that in the househokis of rich men, where money was no objeet, the quantity consumed did not exceed the general average of 'al. head. The comparison with England did not hold good. Salt was in this country ustd for many purposes, such as salting meat, AT., while in India ►t was confined simply to alimentary uses. The duty being only three-farthings per pound, the NM paid under that head by every native tOr his twelve pounds would amount but to ninepenee per annum, or four days' wages. The general purport of the evidence on the subject showed that the salt duty was not an oppressive tax, and there was an additional reason for retaining it---that no person had as yet pr►posed a substitute, except one witness, who pro posed a tax upon sugar. Meantime the effect of the tax was to contribute a million and a half to the revenue, which was not to be lightly sacrificed. Mr. 3. reim.inoite declared that it was mere " quibbling" to say the salt trade under the present Indian sy tent was not a monopoly. Ile accused Sir C. Wood of setrogradetio► in his free-trade policy, and urged on the house, even it' deaf to the cries of India, to listen to the demands of the home traders. Sir J. W. 114)4441 contended that the decision given by the committee of Isfitt had been fairly obeyed, and that. monopoly was now at an end. The twelve pound average of consumption he regarded as fair anal sufficient, and stated that after three reductions of duty, which were accompanied by an enhancement in the demand, a fourth, not being so endorsed, had proved that the limit was readied where diminution of cost did not lead to increase of consumption. The clause Was supported by Mr. TArrom Enti. TON, and opposed by Mr. 11. MAnoocg because he objected to the species of interference with the in. tenni! administration of India which it comprised. Mr. Amoeiti.v also believed (and quoted a saying of Napoleon in support of his conclusion) that India would be lost to us if the Legislature undertook its inten►sl government. Ile would have supported a mere resolution to the same purport. Mr. liege wished to see a monopoly abolished which operated injuriously on the health of the natives, anal also desired to extinguish the last relics of their old trading character still preserved by the Company. Mr. liAsev Seymorit also supported the clause. Mr. Lows objected to it on a point of form. It recited the Companv'e last act; whereas, if the mo nopoly was consistent with that act, its recital was useless ; if not, then the act itself (offered the means of restraint. That the Company, in appearance, pow• messed a monopoly he dial lot deny, but contended that it was not an odious, only a restrictive, mo nopoly. Practically they gained nothing by the re strictions on the production sir trade in salt, but s teed impartially between imposters, manufacturers, and eonsumers, interested simply in the collection of a certain amount of revenue. Sir J. l'akington did not pr►pose to remove one of the burdens of the people of India, end, if the Anise were carried, matters would remain as they were, except that the house would have intruded into matters of which they had no knowledge, of which they were incompetent to judge, and on which great Indian authorities differed. Lord Joss Rt•seztt. observed that a speech directed against the tax prefaced a clause which tended in no degree to its removal. The Indian (lovernment, under a system of long standing, and warranted by opinions of the most highly-qualliad authorities, eleeted to raise a large portion of Ile* revenue from salt. He had never adopted thi INa elusion, enforced by many, that the home Legidelle MINEMENNEMEMEMMMmmimmmm m..mm...PIm-------- dila. THE PRESS. Mr. VERNON SMITH moved a clause by which the salary of the President of the Board of Control should be fixed at an equality with that of one of the principal Secretaries of State, namely. 5,000/. per annum. lie also proposed to enttet that only one of the Secretaries of the India Board should be capable of sitting in Parliament. A high salary he believed indispensable to secure the services of an able man ; anti he ti ght one ►ennanent Seeretary infinitely preferable at the board to two political Secretaries, as at present. Lora PALMERRTON urged various reasons, founded chiefly on etiquette, why the President of the Board of Control should not hold the title anti dignity of a Secretary of State, whose function it may be to re eeive anti execute the commands of the S:wereign. With regard to the salary, however, he had no objec tion to an equality, and heartily concurred in the proposition that one Secretary of the hoard should be n►ade non-political, and therefore permanent. It was impossible to overestimate the advantage which the services of a permanent. Secretary would confer on any public department. Sir .1. W. Howl also approved of the suggestion, which encountered no opposition in debate, and eli cited only from Mr. WILL!Aws a sarcastic remark that of all the amendments proposed Goveniment had supported but one, which increased the salary of the President. A division took place, itt whieh the clause w 11.4 car ried by n majority ot• 1 In to '29. Mr. WISE afterwards moved a clause to the effect that one third of tho persons admitted to Athliseombe should be selected from the sons of ()Ulcers in the civil or military service of the Company, sneh melee tion to be made by the Governor-tietteral of India. Upon a division this clause was negatived by 101 to '29. The bill then passed through committee. Being brought up on Thursday "to be consi tiered as amended," Sir J. PAsiNwros moved the insertion of a clause eivicting that the manufacture or sale of salt, which hail hitherto been reserved by the Company as a special monopoly, should be thrown open, and that will`rols it in expedient the said malt monopoly should 1111$41- lately cease and determine: lie it enacted, that from noel after the first day of May, 18511, it than be unlawful for the said Kant India patty to cent tttttt • the manufaet ore of salt an at present carried on by them In the prov 'nee of lb.ngal, ala i th a t ' omi t manufacture should absolutely cease, whether carried an by the East India I'umpauy or tot the account gild under the control of the maid company. and that the no faeture and sale of salt in India shall be absolutely tree, subject only to noel excise or other as may now or from time to time be levied upon such snit so mattufactured. - This question, he contended, was intimately con nected with the health and welfare of the natives of India, with the commerce of England, and the con sistency of our legislation. As long since as Is3ll a committee had pronounced sentence of extinction upon the salt monopoly ; but that sentence was still unexecuted, and the time had come when Parlia ment itself must interfere. The injurious conse quences which that monopoly produced were manifold. Tested by health, it, was shown that the Indian popu lation, living almost exclusively upon a vegetable diet, required an increased lallowance of salt, and any scarcity of that condiment occasioned frightful diseases. Tested by quantity, returns which he cited showed that the consumption of salt in Prussia anti Austria, in spite of the tiovernment monopoly, amounted to 10 lbs. per head of population ; in Eng land it was about 25 lbs., and in America 27 lbs., while in India the average fell below 12 ll,s. per head. And tested by price, it was proved that the cost of manufacture on the spot, amounting to 4(ls. per ten, was so exorbitantly increased by the monopolising system, that the consumer paid 251. per ton for an adulterated article, consisting, in a great measure, of sand and ashes. This, tot►, occurred in regard of an article which could he byught in Cheshire for las. a ton, and imported into India at a freightage of 255. Credible witnesses hail asserted that the expense of this single article to a ryot and his family amounted to eight per cent.. on his usual earnings, orextracted one month's wages out of the year. Detailing some of the expedients to which the Company had resorted in order to preserve a practical monopoly in the face of public opinion, acts of Parliament, and commer cial enterprise at home, Sir .1. l'akington contended that the recent increase in the import of the commo dity had but changed the source of supply without benefiting the consumers. He concluded : " Would the house and the country helievt• that now, in 11453, he was appealing to the friends nod followers of Sir R. Peel, the great advocate of commercial freedom, and the great enemy of eommerchd restriction, to put an end • to a monopoly which Was fatal to the health and even to the lives of the people of India—l Hear, hear)—and which Was injurious to nt least one important branch of trade in this country ? (Hear, hear.) He believed that there was no loan who would defend this monopoly in the abstract, but he supposed he should he met by the one argument of money. He should be told that the revenue of India could not dispense with the income derived from this salt mono ►oly, and that upon this account we could not afford to )n just, to relieve the distress of the unhappy Indian, and to set commerce free in this respect. Now, he had two