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

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 India,
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 than 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
rosT!
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 Tnielvantsges 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 thethird 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 temptations
_ 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—they 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 house. So int-
portant a question ought hot to be hurried over at that
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."