The Press. — London, England, 1857-05-23 00:00:00

MAY 23, 1857. there is most risk, there is most profit in every kind of speculation, whether of agricul ture or of trade. But these poor ryots cannot. we repeat, afford to run such risks ; they must be content to steer clear of such speculations, and confine themselves to less remunerative but more certain crops. The wealthier classes, on the other hand, are in India, or in British • India at least, deterred by our revenue system from having anything more to do than they can help with the occupation or cultivation of land. The village money-lenders make ad vances to the pauper ryots at usurious interest, but they will not undertake the cultivation of the soil on their own account. They have received too many lessons of the extent to which, if they did so, their fortunes would become dependent ou every petty official's caprice. That such persons have no natural anti pathy to engaging in these speculations is shown by what they have done in Nagpore, in the Nizam's districts, and in other native States —States in which the land revenue system is as favourable to such investments as our owi► is the reverse. Nothing can be more erroneous than to attribute the large supplies derived from Berar to any peculiar quality of climate or soil; for, as General Low correctly said in his Minute on the annexation of Nagpore, its position as to soil and climate was in no way different from that of the neighbouring dis tricts belonging already to the Company, but in which little or no cotton is grown. It is clear, therefore, that us far as natural capacity is in question, we have an abundance of districts gifted in that way to the fullest extent we can require. Indeed in this respect we have in the valley of the Indus as fine a field for the growth of cotton as any in the world. In respect to climate, position, natural products, capabilities, and geological structure, it re sembles as closely as one pea resembles another the valley of the Nile. Every bird, or beast, or plant, or fish, or fossil, that is found in the one is to be found in the other; and the people bear an amazing resemblance to each other in both. But though cotton grows wild in Scinde, no cotton is grown for exportation, while Egypt exports in abundance a cotton that next to the Sea Island cotton is the finest that exists. Small as Egypt is in extent, and misgoverned as it is, it supplied in 1852 more than half as much cotton as was received from the whole of India. And this Egyptian cotton is far superior to the New Orleans, and brings nearly double the price of Surat. Why, then, is it not grown in Scinde? The reason is simply that in Egypt there exists property in land, and in India there does not ; and that Europeans acquainted with the cul tivation of cotton in Egypt will not consent to run the risks to which they know that they would be subjected by bringing their affairs within the reach of the Company's courts. We have ourselves seen a correspon dence on this subject conducted by a Scotch gentleman engaged by the then Paella of Egypt on his cotton farms. He pointed out with great clearness the entire similiarity between Egypt and Scinde, and the consequent adaptability of the latter province for the growth of cotton of the Egyptian kind. He was offered every reason able indulgence if he would only come out and undertake the experiment in Scinde at his own risk. But he replied that he had been informed by others who had gone to India how dependent he should be on the official within whose district he lived ; and that though the present incumbent might be favourable to him, his successor might be the loverse. He was not, therefore, prepared to waste his life in building up a fortune which might be destroyed at any moment by an angry official's frown. He was not mistaken in the opinion he had formed, for many a European settler in Bengal will tell the same tale. Nor is it Europeans alone wbo have been ruined by such caprices. Nowhere was cotton once more eagerly cultivated by native capitalists than in Buudelkund. But after thousands had embarked' their all in it, there came shat is called a crack collector, who put on the Government screw. The people were getting too rich ; lie increased the assessment ; and the result of one man's cruelty or one man's ignorance was that THE PRESS. the province was destroyed, the revenue fell to zero, and the cotton planters and their capital were all swept away. Is it to be won dered at that under such a sy3tem India cannot be got to supply us with the cotton we require? Change this system, give security to capital there, and England will never be in want of the staple, be her consu►nption of it what it may. MIN ESTERS' MONEY. "AND let me see the man who will dare to bring forward any measure in Parliament for " touching the property of the Church of Ire " land, without including in it that of which " we are a part—the Church of England ?" Such was the question asked, a few weeks ago, on the hustings, at the last election for the University of Dublin. The speaker was neither Mr. NAPIER, nor Mr. G. A. HAMILTON, nor Mr. WHITESIDE ; but the Government can didate, Mr. JAMES ANTHONY LAWSON, for whom the Lord Chancellor of Ireland plumped, and in whose support the Government strained its influence to the utmost. The question put by Mr. LAWSON has been answered by the Pre mier, who has " dared" to break in upon the funds of " The United Church of Great Bri " tain and Ireland," and has pledged his Cabi net to the support of the spoliuting measure introduced by Mr. FAGAN, the Member for Cork. We shall show in a few words that a more dangerous precedent could not be laid down than that adopted by the present Government. " Ministers' Money" was established in Ire land in the reign of CHARLES THE SECOND. It was originally and essentially a Protestant fund, levied on Protestant property and in tended for Protestant purposes. In that re spect, its foundation differs from the ground on which " Tithes" historically rest. Ireland was, after the Protectorate, left to the govern ment of the illustrious ORMOND, one of the greatest statesmen and noblest characters of any age, and the declamation about " the dis " reputable reign of CHARLES THE SECOND" is quite irrelevant. Ireland was in those days fur more benignantly governed than in later times, when the Whigs passed the " Penal Laws." The difference between " Church Cess" and Ministers' Money" was plainly recognised in the legislation of 1833, upon the Temporalities of the Irish Church. Parliament then inter fered to introduce a new distribution of the Church revenues, for the internal improvement of the Establishment, but up to the present moment the Legislature has never done a single act of a confiscatory or " appropriating" character as affecting the external character of the Establishment. It is true that twenty-five per cent.was taken off the nominal resources of the clergy of the Establishment; hut, on the other hand, its positive resources were perma nently strengthened, and the Church was more closely identified than before with the real property of the country. The wedge is now sought to be inserted, and if Parliament sanctions this revolutionary measure, it is impassible to say where the application of this confiscatory principle will be stopped. " What's fact to-day becomes precedent to " morrow." If the Government can take twelve thousand pounds per annum from the Established Church, and make a present of it to the Roman Catholics, there will be no safe guard left for the revenues of the Establish ment. On this point we shall again quote from the manly speech of the Government candidate at Dublin University. Mr. LAwsos delivered a most eloquent defence of the Protestant Church, and avowed himself her zealous sup. porter. Particularly referring t, the subject of " Ministers' Money," he said : Though I am told I come forward in all respects as the supporter of Lori Palmerston, yet I have no hesitation in telling you that I shall, to the utmost of my power, oppose that measure which was recently pending before Parlia ment for taking away indirectly, by what would not be attempted directly, a portion of the revenues of the Church. Here w•e have the candid opinion of one of the most eminent supporters of the present Government. But Mr. Lewsos did not appro. elate the pliability of Lord Pei readiness to veer about. 405 or his What is especially serious in this most im portant matter is the fact that Parliament had already legislated upon the question. Sir JOHN YOUNG'S Act in 1854 made arrangements by which peer persons would be practically relieved from the tax, which was placed upon substantial property. All 101. houses were exempted from the tax, and it was hoped that all pretexts would be taken away from the grievance-mongers. But the hope was in vain. " The sum is small, but the principle is large," cries the Honourable Member for Cork, and Sir GEORGE GREY says the same thing But that view can he retorted on its advo cates. With all possil.le respect we tell the Conservatives in both Houses of the Legisla ture that the question of " Ministers' Money " is one of the greatest importance. It is even stronger than the question raised in 1834, inasmuch as " Ministers Money" was estab lished originally, not in times prior to the Reformation, but by a Protestant Legislature, dealing in the first instance with Protestant property. It seems to us absolutely impos sible that this measure can be passed into a law, since, though " the sum is small," the principle is of momentous importance. PUBLIC AUDIT. WE have endeavoured in a series of articles on the question of Audit and Control of Public Monies to induce the public to give attention to it ; and the Committee now sitting will, we doubt not, thoroughly inves tigate the subject., and suggest a course which will lead to greater simplicity, in order to satisfy the public mind, which is daily becom ing more unsettled. The ignorance of the present system of control and audit is manifest in the Government itself. Even the President of the Council a few days since stated in the House of Lords that " with regard to appro " priating the monies of one department for " the purposes of another," that was simply impossible, as it would not be allowed by the Audit Board. Now, we believe that Lord GRANVILLE was formerly her Majesty's Pay masterl-General. and ought, it is presumed, to have made himself acquainted with the laws regulating the appropriation of public monies; but both he and Lord STANLEY of ALDERLEY, another ex-Paymaster-General, had to be set right by Lord MONTEAGLE, the present Comptroller-General of the Ex chequer, who stated that there was no audit whatever applicable to any of the Civil Service votes ; " that the whole of the Civil Estimates " of the country which were carried on by the " Treasury were entirely out of the control of the " Auditors, and under no circumstances what " ever would Civil Estimates, such as those " they were discussing, be submitted to the '• Board of Audit." Lord MONTEAGLE, the paid Comptroller•-General of the Exchequer, stated this ex-cathelra, and then the President of the Board of Trade, in justification, stated that the head of no Civil Department would " apply such sums, except with the sanction of the Treasury." Of course not! But we should like to know under what authority the Trea sury can misappropriate moneys for other purposes than those directed by Parliament. Well may Lord Msr.siEssuaY complain of the expenditure in St. James's-park ; but we per ceive by the votes that Sir FRANCIS BARING, the chairman of the Public Moneys Committee, has taken up the question of this doubtful expenditure. We may be thankful that our public functionaries have proved themselves so trustworthy, and that we have had no cases of fraud during the last few years of extra ordinary expenditure; but the Government is entitled to no credit for this. We maintain that the Treasury itself must be brought more immediately under the con trol of Parliament, in the manner pointed out by us last week ; and although the Committee may ere long close its labours and recommend some alteration of the existing practice, we shall not rest until the Public Auditors are vested with greater powers, embodying the simultaneous control over the appropriation