The Express.
London, England, 1853-06-04 00:00:00

dewy on the Indus, and some plan is to be initiated
for giving additional powers to the Crown in relation
to appointments to the Executive Council, %haat
suggestions are added about ameliorations of the
mode in which justice shall be hereafter administered.
All these last paints are, however, trifles when com-
pared with the broad scheme for the retention of the
great evil of all —the double government.

Woquite agree with SirCithnr.rs WOOD thatparty
feeling should not enter into the settlement of the
question of Indian government, but the real and only
way to avoid party feeling is to disarm party opposi-
tion by proposing sound measures. Nothing but a
Bill fully equal to the needs of the case—a mea-
sure at once, wise, just, and expedient—could secure
that party unanimity in its favour which Sir CUARLES
WOOD so very properly desires. A first rapid glance
over the scheme last night propounded in the House
of Commons seems sufficient to indicate its lack of
the first essentials requisite for the settlement of the
great question dealt with. And the PRESIDENT of
the BOARD of CONTROL must not be surprised if any
discomforts arising from secessions from the Ministry,
or from financial non-successes, or from rumoured
differences in the Cabinet, are aggravated by the
reception given to his insufficient measure of justice
proposed for India. The main, if not the only
chance, the plan has of success, resides in the fact
that in one light it may fairly bo regarded as a
real Continuance Bill. Leadenhall-street is retained,
it is true, but only with lessened powers, and from
year to year, and even should this measure become
law, it will be the fault of Parliament henceforth
if the subject of Indian reform is all-:wed to sleep
until all abuses capable of remedy are removed
by imperial legislation. The double Government
is only respited—it has, at all events, no per-
manent rew lease of mischievous vitality. In
conclusion, it may be added that when looked
upon as a Parliamentary effort, the speech of Sir
CHARLES WOOD may not unfairly be described as a
very long and rather confused history and defence of
British rule in India—with a small scheme of '
Reform tacked on at the end. During this speech
a thin House became thinner and thinner, until the
audience was smaller than for years has been known
to be the case in the House of Commons when a
Minister was explaining a Cabinet scheme on a
great subject. This melting away of the listeners
may be taken to indicate three things—first,
a practical common-sense protest against the
growing abomination of excessively long speeches;
next, that Sir CnARLES WOOD was decidedly
dreary ; and lastly, that the members of the House of
Commons take less interest in Indian questions than
their vastness clearly requires. For, in truth, the
question of the Government of India is one involving
the present comfort and well-being of more than six
times as many people as dwell in Great Britain, and
involving also the future stability or the premature
downfall of English rule in Hindustan.

AT a time when our Customs Regulations are under
discussion one point claims special consideration. Mr,
DISRAELI said in the Howe the other ni;ht that
the one shilling duty on corn, imposed by Sir R.
PEEL as a nominal duty, now yielded half a million
of revenue. Hie remark was intended to recommend
the continuance of small Customs Duties; but the
fact he adverted to is a better illustration of the mis-
chief Statesmen do unknowingly, than of any good to
arise from retaining a single Customs Duty. When
they inflicted on the nation tho Corn Duties in 1815,
they thought they were only keeping up prices, ex-
tending cultivation, and securing high rents. They
did not mean to impede the progress of manufactures
' and trade, to arrest the national prosperity, to sow
discontent broadcast through the land by cutting off
supplies of food, and annually dooming a portion of
the population to pauperism and death by star-
vation. They never supporta that they ehtsuld.
check the growth of agricultural skill, impede
the cultivation of the fend, and make the land-
owners be regarded as the enemies of the rest
of the community. Yet, before the Corn Laws were
repealed, it was asserted that all these consequences
had ensued, and since they were repealed the asser-
tion has become a demonstration as complete as any
problem in geometry. There is come reason to sup-
pose, therefore, that this nominal duty of one shilling
pee quarter on all kinds of grain, sad of fonryence-

halfpenny per cwt. on all kinds offlour and meal—which
tununatt to be a real and substantial duty,varying froni
two per cent. to six per cent. of the value of the
article, and yields some half a million a year revenue,
—may be attended with other important consequence.,
of which those who imposed it had no knowledge
whatever. This nominal duty—and nomical it was to
men accustomed to a price of 100 s. for wheat—was
intended solely to secure a return of all the corn
imported in different years. Prior to that time
annual importations were fitful, and comparatively
small, varying from ail to four million quarters ; but
now we regularly import close on ten million quar-
ters, or their equivalent in flour or meal, and the
trade in grain is as regular and extensive as the
trade in tea. No loss or ruin has fallen, in conse-
quence, on our agriculture; it is more flourishing
than it ever was, and this great trade has augmented
very much the national prosperity. In total igen.
ranee of each a fact, and therefore thoughtlessly and
heedlessly, was the duty imposed. It excited no dis-
cussion at the time,—it was accepted, as a matter of
course, a merely nominal thing, which could have
no important effect whatever ;—and so the Govern-
ment is endowed with a large revenue, and an int.
portant trade ii subjected to vexations restrictions,
which were never intended, and which areat this mo-
ment exciting great irritation in the corn importers.
Last year the nominal duty yielded 437,2291.,
showing an importation of 8,744,580 qrs. of corn,
The year before it yielded 504,9211., showing an im-
portation of 10,088,420 qrs. About 105 articles are
enumerated in the finance accounts as yielding the
22,000,000/. of Customs revenue, and of those articles
corn was the eighth most productive last year, and
the seventh most productive the year before. Last
year coffee yielded 437,2291., being 32,8441. more
than the sum yielded by corn. The year before coffee
yielded 444,6701., being 60,2511. less than the sum
yielded by corn. The only articles which in the two
years yielded more than corn were—rum, brandy,
sugar, tea, tobacco and snuff, and wine. If we place
runs and brandy together under the head of spirits, as
we may, we shall then see that this nominal duty
annually yields more to the revenue than each of the
real duties imposed on 98 articles, and stands
in point of productiveness the sixth article
of the whole 103 articles which yield the
revenue of the Customs. The first unexpected eon.
sequence of this nominal duty is—that a CHANCEL-
LOR of the EXCHEQUER who objects to almost every
proposed reduction of duty, because ho cannot give
up revenue,—will retain it whatever may be its dis-
advantages, because it produces such a large and
real sum of money.
It was as little foreseen when this nominal duty
was imposed that England would become a great
enlrep4e for corn, as that it would import 10,000,000
quarters a year for its own consumption. But it
has; and during the two last weeks the reports from
the corn market state that rye in considerable
quantities has been purchand in Eng laud
for Holland, Belgium, and Germnny. "Rye;
says Mr. 111ONGREPILN in his circular of May
30, describing the current prices of cir,,,c s (cost,
treight, and insurance) from Cie Mediterranean,