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

coloured picture drawn by Sir J. Pakington, there was, h
he maintained, no evidence that the people of India had
not a fair amount of salt. Upon this question Parliament
should legislate not for England, but for India, or rather
the Government should legislate in India ; the importation
of British salt had already thrown out of employment
many of the Molungoes, or hereditary salt-producers in
Bengal. The duty upon salt, which was not felt as op-
pressive, ha 4 been reduced 25 per cent.; but the object of
Sir J. Pakington was to introduce an excise system into
India, which would cause great distress among the pro-
ducers, and augment the charge of the preventive service.
The salt monopoly, as it was termed, which was no longer
a monopoly of sale, was only a mode of collecting a re-
venue which could no bee commuted for any other tax.
Mr. J. G. PHILLIMWE assailed Sir C. Wood for kis
retrograde policy and his advocacy of what it was mere
quibbling to say was not a monopoly. In a vehement
speech he denounced the conduct of the company on this
question, and urged the Government, even if deaf to the
cries of India, to listen to the voice of our own manufac-
turers.

Sir J. NOGG admitted that there was just ground of
complaint prior to 1836, before which the company had a
monopoly both of production and of sale, by which foreign
salt was practically excluded. Ho contended that, undr
the circumstances of the native, the twelve pounds which
had been spoken of was a fair average, because there were
a variety of other condiments and spices -which the inhabi-
tants of India could obtain at the lowest possible price.
He stated that the duty had been reduced, and a further
reduction would take place when circumstances allowed;
Declaring that trade in salt was entirely free, he opposed.
the amendment of Sir J. Pakington:
Mr. T. EGERTON supported the amendment.
Sir H. MADDOCK opposed it on the ground of his ob-
jection to the species of interference contemplated.
Mr. ADDERLEY believed with Napoleon, that if
" England undertook the internal government of India,
that country would be lost to us." Had this been a mere
resolution on the subject, he should however, have sup-
ported it.
Mr. HUME was desirous to see the salt monopoly
abolished, believing that it operated unfavourably for the
health of the natives, and he also wished to see the trading
character of the Company at an end.
Mr. D. SEYAIOUR. supported the amendment.
Mr. LOWE objected to the form of the clause, which
recited the Company's act, and said that if the latter was
sufficient, the clause was useless, and if not, it was useless
to recite it. He admitted that the Company had a
monopoly, but not one to which an odious sense attached
It was only a restriction, necessitated because the company
had to raise a certain revenue. The company gained no-
thing by the restriction, but stood impartial between the
importer, the manufacturer,i and the consumer, and had
no interest in what had been assailed with so many hard
names. Sir J. Pakingtou did not propose to move one of
the burdens of the people of India, and if the clause were
carried, matters would remain as they were, except that
the house would have intruded into matters of which they
had no knowledge, on which they were incompetent to
judge, and on which great Indian authorities differed. He
urged upon Sir J. Pakingtou that the proposed clause
would not serve the interests of the British manufacturers.
Mr. JOHN M`GREGOR regretted exceedingly to hear
the speech of his hon. friend the member for Kiddermin-
ster, with regard to the great economical principles of the
salt duties. (Divide.) But as he conceived the amend-
ment a dangerous experiment, he would vote against it—
(ironical cheers)—differing altogether, however, from the
financial principles of the hon. member who had just sat
down.
Mr. BLACKETT had never heard of a subject so full of
anomalies as the Indian question, but it was long before he
could have imagined such an anomaly as hearing a Free-
trade Minister standing up for the interests of the salt-pro-
ducers of Bengal—(Opposition cheers)—and giving an ex-
planation of the word " monopoly," which would, he
trusted, snake the hon. member repent ever having applied
the term to the corn laws. (Hear, hear.) It was twenty
years ago since Mr. Wilbraham brought forward a pro-
position against the Indian salt-tax, and in the debate
which ensued, Mr. C. Grant. afterwards Lord Glenelg,
said he did not defend it. No one could deny the expe-
diency of removing it, and the Government thought it
should be got rid of as soon as possible. Mr. Cutler Fer-
gusson, the advocate of the East India Company, could
only defend it by saying the prejudices of the Indians
were so powerful as to offer a complete bar to the substi-
tution of any other tax ; and on the assurance that the
Government would consider the alteration of the tax as
soon as possible Mr. Wilbraham's amendment was with-
drawn. The Parliament consented to leave the abolition
of the tax to the discretionary power of the local authori-
ties in India ; but now that they heard arguments Lord
Glenelg would have been ashamed to use, he trusted they
would not consent once more to leave the question in such
hands.
Lord J. RUSSELL said, that before the house divided he
wished to saya few words with respect to what appeared to
him to be the extraordinary nature of the step recom-
mended by the right hon. baronet the member for Droit-
wich ; and, first, let him remark that though his speech had
been entirely against the tax on salt—and if he had pro-
posed to abolish the salt tax altogether, he might have
been disposed to feel his argument and vote for the repeal
of the tax—the right hon. gentleman, after a long speech
against the vicious and oppressive nature of the salt tax,
proposed to do what? To leave it as the Indian Govern-
ment thought fit, and only to interfere with the mode
of collection, and say it should no longer be raised
in the present manner, but by a system of Excise.
Now, there was this important point to be considered—
that, supposing the house should agree with the motion
of the right hon. gentleman, it would by no means get
rid of the salt-tax, which had been called a monopoly,
but which he thought his hon. friend the member for
Kidderminster had proved to be no monopoly as a manu-
facture at all ; but the Indian Government, in the ex-
ercise of its discretion, a‘nd presided over by a noble lord
who was certainly as conversant, perhaps, with matters of
trade and commerce as any one who evet went to India,
might think the best mode of raising the revenue was
partly by a salt tax, and that the best mode of getting
that tax was by the manufacture in Bengal being in the
hands of the Government. He had heard it said that
Parliament was responsible for any deficiency which might
occur in the revenues of India, but certainly he had never
subscribed to that doctrine, and thought it entirely un-
founded. He thought the revenues of the holders of East
India Stock arose out of the territorial produce of India,
, and that they had no right to come to Parliament in case of
a deficiency. But the case would be totally altered if the
house chose to vote with the right hon. gentleman. If they
said there should be no longer a revenue of 2,000,0001.
raised in the manner which the Government of India, in its
discretion, aided by the most able men, thought fit, how
could they tell what would be the consequence ? They
knew the salt tax was a tax which occasioned a great deal
of discussion, that it was subject to much evasion, and was
oppressive to the inhabitants of the country. Suppose there
was 1,000,0001. wanting in the revenue of India. who
would be responsible for the deficiency ? Would it be the
Indian Government? Would they be bound to lay on
a new tax to supply the deficiency which the vote of the
House of Commons had occasioned ? No ; certainly not.
They could say, for the first time, with justice, "The
deficiency has been occasioned by Parliament. Don't let
us lay on a new tax which may be oppressive to the
people of India, and let us ask the house, which has alone
occasioned it, also to supply the deficiency." He hoped,
therefore, that the house, before they supported the
proposition of the right hon. gentleman—before they in-
dulged his constituents with the prospect of better days,
would consider that as this was a subject which affected
India, it would be far better that they should not set the
example of regulating the finances of India by their own
information, which after all must be very imperfect, but
leave that great and important subject in the hands of the
Government of India, as it had. hitherto been. (Hear,
hear.)
Mr. DISRAELI denied that there was any such inconsis-
tency as the noble lord seemed to suppose between the speech
and the motion of the right hon. gentleman the member
for Droitwich. It was quite true that the motion of his
right hon. friend was not for the repeal of the salt-tax, but
for au alteration of the mode of levying it, and it was
equally true that in his speech he did not conceal from the
house that his intention was to promote the ultimate re-
duction. if not the repeal, of the tax. But the first step
was to destroy the monopoly, and when the monopoly was
destroyed he defied them to raise the present excessive tax ;
so that the observations of the noble lord had not at all an-
hsiovnei:efdritehned.posiHtieonorwhr.i cphishraaedlib) ecoenutldakneont
unprebey whiisthrigthhet
noble lord as to the difference between the revenues of
The noble nteolbdle
ttEhhne vHeeunsueesefof
Commonslndia. them
igt laehileddeira•encoOfgattilh'seeed no identity between those two re-
that therdioepdinitohnenotsfeltvhsosseoncollherng colleagues of
disciples of Sir R. Peel? (Hear, hear.) 'Was that the
tvheenuneso.ble lord Was who prided
opinion of Sir R. Peel? All of them had read, and many
of them had heard the opinion of that eminent personage
that great authority on financial subjects—that he
could not for a moment acknowledge that there was any
and
i which wouldt
as the
oneef beremembered, too, that
difference between the revenues of England and the re-
venues of India ;
it
whichw a was the
was state
put
forward in
financesthe poafrthicdiaular nmwaerrgeplaeenedts
in favour of the imposition of the property and income
tax. (Hear, heat.) He (Mr. Disraeli) asked the house
whether any one could suppose that the embarrassment
of our Indian finances must not ultimately in its con-
sequences devolve upon the people of this country ? for he
must say that until the noble lord rose on this occasion,
and apparently for the sole purpose of announcing his want
of agreement with that financial doctrine, he had never
heard any person of authority profess an opposite opinion.
(Hear, hear.) He repeated that he did not agree with the
noble lord in that opinion. He was sure that if there was
embarrassment in our Indian finances, that embarrassment
must ultimately be examined and dealt with by England.
But he could not allow any opinion, ono way or the other,
on such a subject, at ail to interfere with the conclusion
which they ought to arrive at with respect to the particular
topic before them. They were called on now to consider
what should be the government of India for a considerable
space of time—probably for 20 years, from the decision
which they had previously arrived. at. It had been laid
before them that the fiscal arrangement in question
was, in the opinion of his right hon. friend, attended
with much misgovernment, and was injurious to the
inhabitants of India. His right hon. friend had 118;1';
before them all the circumstances and causes which
__rau
induced him to think to adopt that opinion, and he (Al •
Disraeli) must say that he had yet heard nothing from any,
one which had at all met the case which his right
hon. friend had placed before them. Well, if et was
true that the salt monopoly—let them call it, if they liked,was
by another name, and see if it smelt !varter---1,
urious to the great
true that it produced consequences so
body of the population of India, he wanted to
ac it. know howon of the
the
the evil was to be dealt with except by
British Parliament ; and when a more fittingopportunity
could occur for Parliament to consider remedial means in
this respect than the one which had now offered itself ?
That was the point which they had to consider. Here was
an evil, the immensity of which could not well be de-
scribed. How was it to be encountered ? Tilley were
told that they must not interfere with the fiscal details
of India—that they should leave them to the Court of
Directors, and to the Governor-General. But the house
had to consider whether the Court of Directors, or our own
Viceroys who were sent to India, were inclined, or power-
ful enough, to encounter this grievance, 'and to combat
with the evil consequences which were occasioned. If
these persons neglected to do so, or if they were powerless
to do se, was it the duty of that house to step in and fulfil
that which these persons had omitted to accomplish? and.
if it was their duty, was there any opportunity that could
offer better than the present for doing it ? That was the
question, and no noble lord or right hon. gentleman who
had yet risen had attempted to meet that which was the
real point under discussion. There was one person who
was neither a noble lord nor a right honourable gentle-
man, yet who had come forward, and certainly with
a confidence which he believed none but the honourable
member for Kidderminster could display—(hear, hear)—
he had met the difficulty, and seemed prepared to meet
all the difficulties connected with this or any other
subject. (Hoar, hear.) There was nothipg more interest.