The Express.
London, England, 1853-06-10 00:00:00

-THE t EXPRESS; FRIDAY EVENING, JUNE 10, 1853.

but no one had pointed out a remedy, and as
the representative of a manufacturing constituency
lin was extremely anxious that before they proceeded to
tear down the existing form of government, they should
know what was to be fubstituled for it. (Hear, hear.) lion.
members had read tiradee of disappointed aspirants in India
—lawyers and editors of neswepapers—and quoted state-
ments without proof. Ho was old enough, however, to re.
member the throwing open of the trade into India in 1812,
' previous to which the exportation of manufactured goods
from this country was only about 130,0001. a year ; whereas
it now amounted to 5,000,0001. Those who charged
I the Indian government with having thrown mid-
' lions of people out of employment, forgot that
the constituents of the hon. member for Manchester
had had their goods introduced into India at a duty of only
5 per cent., while a duty of GO per cent. was levied on
Indian goods.
Mr. BRIGHT said his constituents did not want any
favour in the matter. . .

Mr. 11ASTIE continued—What he rose principally to
say, however, was, that ho was extremely anxious that
before cinsentiog to the destruction of a government from
which the people of India bad derived enormous advan-
tages, and by which the peopk of England, among the rest
his own constituents, had greatly benefited, they should
know clearly what was proposed in its stead.
Mr. HUMS said he did not concur in either of the
views which had Peen taken of this subject. (Laughter.)
He agreed, indeed, with his hon. friend who had just sat
down, that before they consented to destroy the present
government they ought clearly to understand what they
were to have in its place; and he thought they ought es-
pecially to ascertain what bad been the result of the
system pursued since 1834. He would not refer to
extracts which had reference to a period prior to 1834, be-
cause be thought they were inapplicable—(hear, hear)—
the question being whether the government established in
1833 had produced the results contempluted at the time, and
which the people of India had a right to expect. Much that
had been said with regard to misgovernment was no doubt true.
Many measures that would have added to the prosperity of
India had been neglected, but very much more had been
done than some parties were inclined to admit. But, apart
from that question, the present attempt to legislate inlino
ranee of what had taken place since 1831 was premature
and unatatesmanlike. The proper course would have been
te institute inquiries into every department of the govern.
ment of India, as was done in 1830, 1831, 1832, and 1833,
preparatory to legislating, and not to deal with a question
of this magnitude as though they were called upon to act
in a sudden emergency. He could scarcely bring himself
to believe that the government themselves really had any
idea of legislating permanently this year upon the subject,
especially when he recollected that the Court of Directors
were not consulted until the ISth of June, whereas all
previous changes were submitted to them, and their opinion
was taken upon them long before they were brought before
parliament. He would venture to say that no petty parish bill
was ever attempted to be peened through the house with so
much precipitation as was this measure for the future go-
vernment of a great empire. As he bad said, he approved
of many of the measures of the Court of Directors far more
than many of his hon. friends near him did, for he knew
the important benefits they had conferred upon India ; and
it was for that reason, amongst others, that he was anxious
that inquiry should take place in the committee as to who
was really to blame for the misgovernment of that country.
lie wished to pat the saddle on the right horse; and there-
fore he had been desirous that every complaint lodged
against the company's government, either here or in India,
should be investigated ; but the committee (which he
thought bad not been properly selected) refused to enter
upon any such inquiry, end, when he suggested that the
parties who had petitioned the house—the native inhabi-
tants of Bengal, Madras, end Bombay—should be invited
to come forward end prove their allegations only, the other
members of the committee supported him. Ile had lis-
tened with attention to the speech of his right hon. friend
the President of the Board of Control, but was surprised to
hear him, after praising the Court of Directors for the
many improvements they had introduced into the govern-
ment of India, conclude by proposing to destroy that orga-
nisation under which they had evinced so much efficiency.
(Hear, hear.) In the course of the last 20 years Canada,
the Cape, and nearly all our colonies, had been at some
time or other in almost a state of rebellion, while India had
remained quiet. This he attributed to the regularity with
which her affairs were conducted, and the onward progress
which, under the administration of the Court of Directors,
it bad made. This he bad no hesitation in saying, that had
the same principles of government w hick had been acted upon
in Canada and at the Cape been introduced into India, India
would not have been worth 10 years' purchase to us. He
looked upon India as of immense importance to this country.
It was almost impossible sufficiently to estimate its value to
England as an empire. That value was not to be regarded
in reference to the 3,000,000 of subsidies drawn from it,
but to the strength it gave to the nation by the extension
of her establishments and her power. (Hear, hear.) He
wanted an inquiry lute the financial question, to whom the
increase of the debt to 28,000,000 during the last twenty
years was attributable ? There were some, he knew, who
charged it to the door of the Court of Directors, but they
had nothing to do with it ; and had they acted with justice
to themselves and their proprietors, they would have pub-
lkly protested against that waste and misgovernment which
had been carried on by her Majesty's government as repre-
sented by the Board of Control, and by means of which
that increase in the debt had been occasioned. It was the
Board of Control who were chargeable with all the abuses
and all the estravegance which had taken place ; and by
the present measure it was proposed to take away, or at
least to diminish, the efficiency of the only cheek they bad
bad upon them—viz., the Board of Directors, who were by
law the guardians of India. With regard to the 12,000,0001.
of debt due to the proprietors, and for the payment of the
interest on which 2,000,0001. had been invested to accumu-
late as a guarantee fund, it had been asked by some persons
who had written upon the subject, why not borrow money
at 3i per cent., and pay off this debt, which is now liable to
101 per cent. ? But those writers forget that not only the
capital but the interest, at the rate stated, was secured to
the proprietors until 1874, by the act of 1833. The pro-
posal, so far as regarded the reinstitution of the Board of
Directors, and the depriving them of their patronage, would
degrade that body, and destroy their efficiency.
What they ought to have done was to 'storm
the Court of Directors, by abolishing clique influence,
and by extending the basis of the constituency
by which they were elected. With regard to the Board of
Control, it was most inefficient. Very few of its members
knew anything about India; in fact, it was a mere political
football used by each succeeding government for the pur-
pose of filling up a number of offices. The whole of the
financial difficulty of India, as he should be able to show,
was owing to the incompetency and interference of that
board. But for the wars into which that department bad
forced the government of India, there would have
been an annual surplus in the revenue. And
far the wan he maintained the directors were not
responsible. He thought the measure ought to be opposed
In every stage ; it was is mad proceeding, and no wise
man would have taken such a step. It was his opinion that
ae bill ought to have been introduced without the fullest
inquiry.
Mr. BLACKETT, on the part of the hon. member for
Poole, begged to say with reference to an observation of
his, that there were only two newspapers who supported
this measure, and they were in the pay of the government,
that it had only escaped him in the heat and enthusiasm of
debate. _ _ _

Lesye was then given to bring in the bill.
CUSTOMS ACTS.

The house haying gone into committee upon these acts,
the Chairman read that portion of the tariff relating to the
!duties on oranges and lemons.
Sir W. JOLLIFFE regretted the absence of the Chan-
! miler of the Exchequer, as he wished to say a few words
relative to what had fallen from that right hon. gentleman
at en earlier period of the evening. The right hon. gentle-
man had stated that some delay had occurred in reference
to the matter now before the committee, and it seemed to
him (Sir W.Jolliffe) that that statement was made in such a
way as to lead the house to think that he was to blame.
The feet was, that when the matter was last before the
house, he made sow observations as to the duties upon
oranges and lemons, but when the committee arrived at
those items in the tariff he was not in the house, and an
hon. friend, it being then two o'clock in the morning, sug-
' grated that the consideration of those items should be post-
poned. That was agreed to by the Chancellor of the Er-
chequer, who now complained of the delay. He (Sir W.
Jolliffe) mast certainly complain of this, more particularly
u the accusation of the right hon. gentleman was made at
a time when he (Sir W. Jolliffe) could not, according to the
rules of the house, offer anything in reply. With regard to '
the duty now under consideration, he would point out to',
the committee that, while the Chancellor of the Exchequer '
proposed to reduce the duties upon most foreign fruits to
one-half of their present amount, he only reduced the duty
upon oranges and lemons one.third. These articles were
essentially the poor:teen's luxuries, and they entered in no
way into competition with home produce. He therefore
moved that the duty, instead of standing at Bsl., as at
present proposed, should be reduced to 6d.
Lord J. RUSSELL could assure the hon. member oppo-
site (Sir W. Jolliffe) that the Chancellor of the Exchequer,
in referring to the delay which hod taken place, did not
mean to bring any accusation against him. All his right
hon. friend stated was, that delay would lead aad was
leading to very mischievous consequences as regards the
dealers in oranges and lemons.
Mr. WILSON said that at present the duty upon oranges
and lemons was charged in the most clumsy way—so
clumsy, indeed, that it was almost impossible to state with
accuracy what proportion toe duty now proposed bore to
that at present payable. As regards the actual amount
fired in the tariff, he could only say that much correspon-
dence had taken place upon the subject with some of the
leading traders in these fruits, and the duty prop sad by
his right hon. friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer was
considered by them a fair adjustment of the matter.
Mr. IIL'ME, believing that nothing was so beneficial and
needful to the working classes as the fruits under conside-
ration, would ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer to abo-
lish the duty upon them altogether. [The right hon. gen-
tleman came into the house while Mr. Wilton was

',peaking.
Sir W. JOLLIFFE repeated his complaint in regard to
the statement made by the Chancellor of the Exchequer.
The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER said that
all he had stated wee that an hon. member—and he referred
to the bon. member for Petersfield (Sir W. Jolliff..)—had
spoken with respect to this matter, and bad intimated an
Idea of making a proposition to the committee; but he
(the Chancellor of the Exchequer) had never laid that any
hon. member had caused any &ley, because it was not in
his recollection that any one had done so. (IL ar.) The
only recollection he had upon the matter was, that when
them items came before the committee upon a former occa-
sion, the hon. member for Berkshire had, out of respect to
the hon. member opposite (Sir W. Jolliffe) asked