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

coloured picture drawn by Sir J. Pakington, there was, he
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
,a British salt. had already thrown out of employment
many of the Molungees, or hereditary salt-producers in
Bengal. The duty upon salt, which was not felt as op-
pressive, had been reduced 25 per cent.; but the object of
Sir J. Pakington was_,to introduce an excise system into
India, which would case great distress among the pro-
ducers, and augment the charge of the preventive service.
Thrsailf moliefoly; as it was ferule& 'which was no 'longer
a monopoly of sale; was only a mode of collecting a re-
venue which could nob bee ammuted fox' any other tax.
Mr. J. G. PHILLIMOLIE assailed Sir C. Wood for his
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-

turcrs.
Sir ne HOGG 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. He contended that, under
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-
jeetion 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.
Arr. 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. SEYMOUR supporte&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, and the consumer, and had
no interest in what had been assailed with so many hard
names. Sir J. Pakington did not propose to move one of
the burdens of the people of India, and if the clause werecarried, 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. Sie
urged upon Sir J. Pakington that the proposed clause
would not serve the interests of the. British manufacturers.
Mr. JOHN APGREGOR 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.) • Bat as he conceived the amend-
ment a dangerous experiment, he would vote against it—
(ironical 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, make the hon. memberrepent 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
whieh 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 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'e amendment was with-
drawn. The Parliament ponsented 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
Glenulg woad:II-lave been ashamed to use, he trusted they
would not consent once more to leave the question in such
hands.
Lord J. RIMSELL said, that before the house divided he
wished to say a 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 • ite should no longer be raised
in the present manner, but by a system of Excise.
Nov, 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. Mend 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, and presided over by a noble lord
who was certainly as conversant, perhaps, with matters of
trade and commerce as any one who ever 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 waa by the manufacture in Bengal being in the
bands 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, added 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? Weald they be bound to lay on
a new tax to supply the deficiency which the vote of the
House of Commons bad occasioned ? No ; certainly not.
They could say, for the first time, with justice, "The
deficiency has been cceasioned 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 prospeat 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,
bear.)
Mr. DISRAELI denied that there was any such ineonsis-
tency as the noble lord seemed to suppose between the speech
and the emotion 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 an alteration of the mode of levying it, and it was
equally true that in his speech ho 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-
swered the position which had been taken up by his right
hon. friend. lie (Mr. Disraeli) could not agree with the
noble lord as to the difference between the revenues of
England and the revenues of India. The noble lord
the leader of the House of Commons had told them
that he recognised no identity between those two re-
venues. Was that the opinion of those colleagues of
the noble lord who prided themselves on being the
disciples of Sir R. Peel? (Hoar, hear.) Was that the
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
difference between the revenues of England and the re-
venues of India ; and it would be remembered, too, that
it was the state in which the finances of India were placed
which was put forward as one of the particular arguments
in favour of the imposition of the property and income
tax. (Hear, hear.) lie (Mr. Disraeli) asked the house
whether any ono 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 aweement with that financial doctrine, he had never
heard any person bt authority profess an opposite opinion.
(Hear, hear.) He repeated that he dielnotagree with the
noble lord in that opinion. He was sure that if there was
embarrassment inour
an
Indian finances ares, that embarrassment
must ultimately
be
examinedOpiniondealt with by England.
But he could not allow any
one 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, flrt,(,rahadthe decision
which they had previously arrived at.
been laid
before them that the fiscal arrangemielaitenclin, question
was, in the opinion of his right hon.
t, and was in ens' attended
ilsgnLe.rnralletile right hon. friend had laidth e
iwnihtabitinatinteall of
before them all the circumstances and causes which had
induced him to think to adopt that opinion, and he
Disraeli) must say that he had yet heard nothing fromThry.
one which had at all met the case which his ri
hon. friend had placed before them. Well, if it ghee
wee
true that the salt monopoly—let them call it, if theyliked,
by another elaureS and see if it smelt sweeter—if it was
true that it produced consequences so injurious to the great
body of the population of India, he wanted to know how
the evil was to be dealt with except by the action of the
British Parliament ; and when a more' fitting opportunity
could occur for Parliament to consider remedial moans in
this respect than tho one which had now offered itself?
That was the int: 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 ? They 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
thess persons neglected to do so, or if they were powerless
to do so, 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 (loft it That was the
g
question, and no noble lord or right hon.
gentleman
tlertua n who
had yet risen had attempted to meet thatwe
real point under discussion. There was one was the
person who
was neither a noble lord nor a right honourable i gentle-
man, yet who had come forward, and certainly
a confidence which he believed none but the honourable e
member for' Kidderminster could display—(hear, hewn--
he had niet the diffietalty, and seemed prepared to meet
all the ditilealtiee •.eonnected with this or any ether
oub'oot, Word.; hoar.) ' Where Weis m 40,7 4oro lut,rczt.
J