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

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 they 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 steed
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