The Sun.
London, England, 1853-06-07 00:00:00

should persevere, he (Mr. Phillimore) trusted that he would
not receive the support of the house.
-.Sir J. W. HOGG began by claiming the indulgence of
the house, upon which he should not have trespassed had
the ordinary course been adopted with respect to this bill.
But the course of the hon. member for Manchester, in not
only arguing against the double system of government, but
in preferring a frightful bill of indictment against the ad-
ministrators of that government, rendered it necessary that
he should, in self-defence, trouble the house at some length.
There appeared to be some division of labour. The hon.
member for Manchester had brought forward the indict-
ment, and the different counts were divided among other
gentlemen, and the hon. and learned gentleman who had
just sat down had taken the department of
.anrdevetud
lation. On this subject a great agitation had
d go further,"
and
out of doors ; he (Sir J. W. Hogg)
say that a great clamour had prevailwedo.llZewwasas glad that
this agitation and clamour prevailed _ glad that
associations had been formed—that every charge, private
or public, had been raked up against the East India Com-
pany, and had been circulated in speeches and pamphlets,
because the house and the country now knew everything
that industry, and he would add malignity, could collect
or invent to be put forth against the East India Company.
They had it all now ; true or untrue, they had it now.
Hitherto it had all been circulated without the opportunity
of reply ; but he was happy that that opportunity was now
of
in the only place where the charges could be met.
His right hon. friend had urged strong and cogent reasons
for immediate legislation. That was the opinion of every
witness who had been examined and every person compe-
tent to give an opinion, and it was also the opinion of Lord
Dalhousie. The hon. member for Manchester repudiated
the, authority of Lord Dalhousie, and stated that his
authority was of no greater weight than any other person's.
He believed that no one but the hon. gentleman would
make such an assertion. The hon. member for Manchester
had asked for delay because a committee on the subject
was sitting. That might at first sight appear to be a
reason, but every one who heard the speech of the hon.
gentleman knew that he did not refer to a tittle of the evi-
dence of any one witness, or to any document produced
before that committee. His speech consisted of shreds and
patches, bits which he had read in old pamphlets and
magazines, and the evidence of witnesses heard not before
the territorial committee, but before the cotton committee,
four years ago, over which the hon. member presided ; he
referred to periods long past, and to famines which oc-
curred long ago, one so long since as 1792, and to periods
prier to the rule of the East India Company, and when the
war with Tippoo was raging. The hon. member did refer
to Mr. Marshman, a witness before the territorial commit-
tee. But he did not read his evidence, but quoted Mr.
Marshman from the Friend of India, and that gentleman
being himself in this country ; he repudiated him as a wit-
ness before the committee, and did not give a word of his
evidence. When the hon. gentleman spoke of the state of
Bengal, and stated that the peace of the country was dis-
turbed, did he read what Mr. Marshman said of the sys-
tem of police, and the generally peaceful state of the coun-
try ? On the contrary, he read from the Friend of Indict
an account of a row between two Indigo planters,
and said that that was the condition of Bengal.
As well might a judgment be formed of the peace-
ful state of this country by reading the police reports.
If the honourable gentleman wished to know the state
of Bengal, why did he not read the evidence of Mr.
Marshman ? Few that heard the speech of his right hon.
friend (Sir C. Wood) but must have gone away knowing
much of the state of India ; his statement was clear, tem-
perate, and comprehensive. The hon. member for Man-
chester had sneered at that speech on the ground both of
its length and its matter, and he taunted his right hon.
friend with sending for information to Mr. Melvill and
others at the India House. That was rather a compli-
ment, for being new in office he had sent for information
to the records of India and those who had charge of them,
and he (Sir J. W. Hogg) wished that the hon. member for
Manchester had done the same and gone to sources as au-
thoritative, and if he bad, the hon. gentleman would have
escaped many errors which he (Sir J. W. Hogg) would
take the liberty of exposing. The hon. gentleman had in
dulged in speculation as to how his right hon. friend had-
got up his speech, and he (Sir J. W. Hogg) would speculate
on the manner in which the hon. gentleman had got up his
speech. It appeared that those with whom the hon. gen-
tleman was associated got hold of anything in any book or
pamphlet against India, they caught up the scissor and cut
it out and sent it to the hon. gentleman, who strung it all
together, and, to use the favourite expression of the hon.
gentleman, that formed the " hocus pocus"' of the getting
up of his speech. (Hear, hear, and a laugh.) India was
not a sealed book. There was no net or proceeding in re-
lation to India which was not public ; there was not ono
rupee spent or received which was not regularly aeconnted
for. Papers were published relating to every transaction ;
there had been debates, committees on salt, on duties, on
cotton, on steam, and on every subject in which India was
concerned, and the aggregate of the information contained
in papers and reports filled 53 folio volumes—and yet they
were told that India was a sealed book. (Hear, hear.) If
the details were not known, the failure was not from the
want of means of information, but from the want of indus-
try in those who had it in their power to acquire it. He
trusted the hon. and learned member for Leominster would
give him credit for this, that where such mighty interests
were at stake they were not influenced by personal motives.
He (Sir J. W. Hogg) declared his belief that immediaae
legislation was imperatively required. (Hear.) If the last
system had worked well, continue it. If it had defects,
remove them—and if it had failed in the great objects it
ought to have attained, away with the system and its
instruments, and form a better government ; but do it
now, do not hand over India to agitation, do not spread
distrust over that mighty continent, do not paralyse the
power and influence of the local government, and render it
incompetent to do good and to restrain ill. He believed
that delay in legislation would destroy peace and tranquil-
lity, would impede the pregreAs of useful reform, and if not
destroy, at least lessen the almost superstitious belief in the
power of this country which now prevailed. He did not
wish to raise alarm, but he conscientiously believed that if
there was any delay in legislation it would spread doubt,
mistrust, and apprehension over India as to the future, and
force into mischievous activity the worst elements of inse-
curity. Therefore, whatever was the legislation', he hoped
it would be prompt and immediate. The hon. member for
Manchester had said truly that the main question was the
system of double government. He (Sir J. W. Hogg)
a,greed in that—and it was because he agreed in
the principle of double government, that he should vote for
the introduction of this measure. The hon. member for
Manchester had pointed out objections to a double govern-
ment. A favourite expression of the hon. gentleman was
that double government was a mere sham ; that it caused
delay and obstruction in carrying on the government ; and
that there was no responsibility anywhere. He did not
know where the hon. gentleman got his authority for that.
statement. [Mr. Bright--I quoted from Mr. Kaye.] He
(Sir J. Hogg) was glad of that interruption, for but for
that it might have escaped him to expose a want of can-
dour in the hon. gentleman, and to have shown that he
had been furnished with scraps, and had not seen the book
itself. What would the house say when he stated that the
hon. gentleman, in alluding to Mr. Tucker's minute, in
connexion with which he quoted from Mr. Kaye, that Mr.
Kaye was not referring to double government in this coun-
try, but to the double government at Calcutta in 1772. Mr.
Kaye eloquently pourtrayed the evils of that double govern-
ment, and concluded with the paragraph which the hon.
gentleman had read, in which Mr. Kaye was speaking of
the double government of 1779, Mr. Kaye being one of the
strongest advocates of the double government in this
country.
Mr. BRIGHT explained that he showed that Mr. Kaye
referred to the double government in Bengal as a sham and
an imposture, and in the next sentence, when he quoted
Mr. Tucker's minute, he referred to the Board of Control
and the Court of Directors, and said it was a mystery
which eluded and deluded the public ; and he (Mr. Bright)
said that Mr. Kaye had expressed the same opinion of the
double government which existed 60 years ago as he (Mr.
Bright) had of the double government now.
Sir J. W. HOGG—The hon. gentleman had quoted such
strong expressions from Mr. Kaye, and being familiar with
the book, it struck him as strange, and he referred to the
passages which preceded the extract, and found that they
stated in effect " that in 1775, after the revenues of the
Indian territories became ours, policy compelled Clive to
carry on the government in the name of the Subbadar in
order to conciliaty foreign powers." Clive's policy was to
have the name of the Subbadar as a cloak lest foreign powers
should be offended, but it led to confusion and oppression,
and the system was denounced by Mr. Kaye; but that gen-
tlethan ought not to have been brought forward as an autho
rity against the double government, when his whole work
was in favour of that form of government. The hon. gen-
tleman said he coupled that statement with Mr. Tucker's
minute. But that minute did not relate to the question of
a double government. Mr. Tucker was the staunchest ad-
vocate of the double government, and he wanted to extend
it further than now. It was true he complained that the
President of the Board of Control could send an order to
the India House to be sighed by the secret committee, and
he said that, as the President of the Board of Control did
this, a seal would do as well, and he spoke of the indignity
of being compelled to sign orders of which he might not
approve, and the purport of which he did not know. But
Mr. Tacker, neither in the words of his minute, nor on any
occasion, used any expression against the double govern-
ment, or intended any reprobation of it in the minute read
by the hon. gentleman. It was said that the Court of
Directors was a sham, and that it had neither power nor
authority. He (Sir J. Hogg) would state boldly and
broadly that under the existing system the' practical go-
vernment of India rested with the Court of Directors.
Every measure originated, and must originate, with the
Court of Directors. Divided as it was into three separate
committees, every measure passed through a committee,
where it was investigated, and then was considered by the
court, after which it. went to the President of the Board
of Control, who had power to alter it. But he could not
make alterations capriciously, but must state his reasons
for any alteration in writing. Was not that a restraint on
the President of the Board of Control, to prevent the pos-
sibility of the least alteration. unless it was such as would
meet with support from the house and the country ? Of
all the dispatches that finally passed the Court of Directors
not five per cent. Were altered by the President of the
Board of Control, and. those alterations were chiefly verbal.
It was true that in what were called "P. C." dispatches,
or those on which there had been previous communica-
tions, the alterations were more frequent, perhaps some
fifty per cent. The body which regulated the foreign
affairs of a state must necessarily have paramount control
and must operate secretly ; that was the case in regard to
this country
and that was the case in India. The hon.
muuttaene ought to know that the duties of the secret
ft x et
os t
were comined to questions of peace and war,
d
of treaties. Parliament had seen that it
wagn lo
such matters
patch and seer
, thus"' body of twenty-four gentlemen with
secrecy
being matters essentially requiring dis-
patch with a view to the public safety. To have
any other saTtoemateth,,tan that which prevailed would be the
cause of
ttlyreana
votim embarrassment to her Majesty's Go-
public
tcouduce to a confusion palpably
posed to the
he was putting the q ueerrg' upTote
eiLebatro benefit—andadest
nd op-
he Pr
gover ouble government of Indiahighest
grounds—arising froul ihieced
this, that it kept the
accomplished
tical bias. (Hear, he ar.)
government alone could such a result bt
that ho
of the British de-
fied. Was there at ,y other portion
minions governed wit out political
imputations iu plenty hat been cast u
01C4:2 knew that
and this was an imy 'Mallon which haa) ,„vbr directors,
uponthem. Right wrong in their
feeling
their
or party fide
, , a fact that
ships. As one instv awe out of many, it might ba. 11(
()Andy
tioned that when Lc rd Efllen.bdo.rreoteigtohnwasit re-
electedlll°ll-
- the twee ty-
tiemen were stanch supporters of
nineteen out of those
Sir Robert Peel,h t recal. The authority of
whose
genGovernm was undoubtedly to
some extent weakeibed by t a
d s()ken of the Court of
Lord Ellenborough h ad been referred to against a double
government. That n oble lord had .
body, Directors as a collo t 9of the greatest
and, indeed, he had
almost individuftrit: Imembers, in min
contempt. That redble lord had said that they had

--.----...--...,--.------
neither power nor influence ;
i that they were a mere politi-
cal fiction. The noble lord, n fact, made an exception to
prove his rule : he said that there were only three or four of
the directors at all competent for the discharge of their
important duties. On a subject like this he (Sir J. Hogg)
had nothing to retaliate. He had nothing to say of Lord
Ellenborough but that, officially and privately, he knew
that his lordship possessed, and had long possessed, an ex-
that knowledge of Indian affairs. He knew his
lordsnip to be a man of great talent and ability; and he
deeply regretted that such a man should have permitted a
spirit of personal_malice to affect so strongly his speeches,
as it affected the evidence he gave to the committee. But,
then, this was the evidence of the recalled Governor-Gene-
ral ; and in opposition to it there was to be offered the
evidence of Lord Ellenborough before he was appointed
Governor-General. [The hon. baronet proceeded to quote
the opinion given by Lord Ellenborough in 1833, in which
he spoke in high terms of the then constitution, general
character, and working of the Court of Directors, and ob-
jected to any change.] Well, this was the answer to the
hon. gentleman's (Mr. Bright's) sneers about the directory
consisting of merely of bankers and brewers. (Hear, hear.)
Bankers and brewers ! He would have been astonished at
any member of that house sneering at bankers and brewers;
but such a sneer came with the least grace from the hon.
member for Manchester. (Hear, hear, and laughter.) The
directors were also told that their patronage had been
abused. His answer was a reference to Lord Ellenborough's
opinion in 1833, Lord Ellenborough having then declared
that the patronage of the directors was most equally dis-
tributed. But he would not stop there :he would, on
this occasion, reply to the general attacks which had been
made on this point, and, among others, he would include
the allegations of Captain Macgregor's pamphlet. He held
in his hand a return laid before the committee - he would
refer to no documents which had not been laid before the
committee ; every hon. member could go to the original
source for his documents ; but he would like to know
where they were to hunt for the documents of the hon.
member for Manchester ? This was a return of the results
of the military patronage, and from this it appeared that
only one-third of the whole military patronage of India
went to the sons of civil and military servants. As to the
civil patronage, and that was what really was valuable,
the figures were just as conclusive in refutation of the po-
sition of the hon. member for Manchester. There had
been 688 civil appointments since 1833 ; he took this from
the records of the India-house—and of these there had been
given among the sons and godsons, nephews, and the rela-
tives of the wives of the directors, 159; to the sons of mili-
tary servants, 260 ; and the residue, 269, had been given
generally and indifferently among the members of society.
This he thought was a complete answer to the charge of
unfair distribution of patronage. The hon. member for
Manchester had also referred a good deal to the vast emolu-
ments of the civil service. He held in his hand an abstract
on this point, and he would tell the house the averages.
The average emoluments on 5 years' service, 4701. per an-
num. On 5 years and not exceeding 10, 911/. Exceeding
10 years and not exceeding 15, 1,5351.; and above 15 years,
2,8451. Considering the education and expense involved in
the preparation for this service; considering also the ability
and the integrity and the devotion which characterised
the service, and taking into account the absence from their
native country, which attended the service, he contended
that these emoluments were on the whole inferior to the
corresponding emoluments to the corresponding stations in
this country. (Hear, hear.) Undoubtedly, however, this
was a question of results. If the system had not worked
well there was no use theorising about the constitution.
He maintained that the result justified the system, and in
proof of that, without confusing the house by imitating the
hon. member for Manchester, and entering into minute de-
tails, he would produce some very satisfactory figures.
There had been a great accession of territory since 1833.
The area of that accession amounted to 267,013 square
miles ; consequently, a population of 8,572,605. He gave
that area and population, because he wished to an-
ticipate the objection that all the increased revenue
had arisen from increased territory. In 1834 the gross
revenue was 18,699,6771. In 1851 the gross revenue was
27,625,3601., showing an increase of nearly 9,000,0001.
How much of that 9,000,0001. arose from the contributions
of new territory ? Why, no less than 2,000,000/. ; but he
would take the aggregate at 2,000,0001., and he would then
have to account how and whence the increased 7,000,0001.
was derived. But it might be said that the increased re-
venue was got from increased taxation. No such thing,
however. Many taxes, since 1835, had been entirely.
abolished ; and a large number had been considerably re-
duced. The export duty had been removed from cotton,
coffee, and other materials ; and the transit duties, which
used to be a large item in the accounts, had been entirely
done away with. Then,
the salt tax had been reduced 25
per cent. ; and thus it was shown that increased revenue
had gone on with decreased taxation. (Hear.) Well, if
this was so, if they were to take in India the tests applied
to every other country, was he not justified in concluding
that India had prospered ? (Hear, hear.) There were,
however, other tests not to be overlooked. The house had
heard a good deal of declamation to the effect that
the land in India was going out of cultivation ; that the
land was falling back into jungle. What were the facts?
In the North Western provinces of Madras, and in Bengal,
the revenue from the land had been, in 1833, 9,115,412/. ;
and in 1851, it was 12,075,479/. ; showing an increase of
revenue from the same territory of 2,960,067/. The increase
of revenue from opium, in the same period, was 2,305,601/.;
from salt, 85,3781.; from customs, 203,428/. ; making alto-
gether an increase of 5,557,4741.; leavinm au increase of
revenue derived from other sources of 1,142,526/. ; which
made up the sum of 7,000,0001., to which he had referred.
After such facts as these, oughttho house to hear any more
of the misery, and destitution, and backwardness of India?
(Hear, hear.) It, might be said all this was artificial pros-
perity, that there had been a starving people notwith-
standing the flourishing revenue. He would take the
tests illustrating that point. Take the imports into
India : In 1831-5, 6,154,129/. ; in 1819-50, 13,696,636/.
He would like to know in what other part of the globe
such a progress was to be traced. Then, the exports :
in 1834-5, 8,188,161/. ; in 1819-50, 18,283,5131. ; being
an increase of 10,000,0001. in twenty years. This was as-
tounding; the figures exceeded anything he could have
conceived. (Hear, hear.) And this had all been accom-
plished by India herself, and by the policy of the Court of
directors • not only without the aid of the English Govern-
ment and of the English Parliament, but in spite of obsta-
cles presented by Parliament. (Hear, hear.) Year after
year, for long years, the East India Company had petitioned
that house in vain to do justice to India by the removal of
discriminating duties. Cotton goods, for instance, had
gone to India on a duty of 5 per cent. from this country ;
but a duty of 62 per cent. was levied, as a prohibition,
against Indian manufactures (Hear, hear.) In vain, for
years, had the East India Company demanded a fair and
equitable commercial tariff from this country in regard to
sugar and to rum. Only the other day had they got those
duties equalised ; and what had been the results ? In 1835,
the year before the duty was equalised, 107,176 cwts. of
sugar were imported from India into Great Britain. What
was the average imports into this country from India in
1851-2 ? 1,390,188 cwt. If they had had that advantage
a long time back they would have had a corresponding in-
crease ; but they (the House of Commons) kept it back.
Again, there was the average importation of rum before
the equalisation 128,000 gallons. Since the equalisation it
had been 686,000 gallons. He left out the odd figures. He
believed his right hon. friend gave them the increase of
cotton. Well, now, in 1806, during the time of the mo-
nopoly of the calumniated body of which he had the hon-
our of being a member, in 1806 the exports from India
amounted to 1,460,0001. in value ; and in 1814, the duty
being then 62A per cent., there were imported into Great
Britain from India 967,652 pieces of calico and muslin.
With silks and taffitas he would not trouble the house, but
the increase was equal. He remembered on a former oc-
casion, when presenting one of the petitions in that house
which were presented in vain, he heard an account of the
misery and desolation in provinces in which the people and
their fathers before them had maintained themselves by
their industry in the manufacture of cotton, and from the
exercise of which they had been driven, not by competition,
for he admitted that steam power in this country would
have that result ; but he heard of the misery and desola-
tion of provinces, particularly in the Deccan. And observe
it was not in India as it was in this country, where even a
handloom weaver, if he lost employment as aweaver, could
turn his attention to something else. Not so in India. In
that country a trade descended from father to son for hun-
dreds of years. Trades were mixed up with religion ; and
if they took a trade from a man, they took from him that
by which alone he got his living, and desolation through-
out these provinces was the melancholy result. They then
never heard of the lamentation ; there was none of the
philanthrophy which now prevailed. Well, now, observe
the case with India. Had England prospered ? England
had not equally advanced with India. In 1814, which was
the first year of what, as regarded India, was nicknamed
free trade, wheneverything from England could go to India
and nothing from India could come to England—(hear,
hear, and laughter)—the British cotton manufacturers ,
exported to the East Indies amounted to 109,487/. ; in
1849-50, the last year he had, they had increased to
4,421,9201. Had Manchester any reason to complain?
Well, had the shipowners any reason to complain ? In
1834-5 the British shipping amounted to 220 vessels,
amounting to 108,870 tons. In 1849-50 the vessels had
increased to 425, and the tonnage to 252,153. Both the
number of vessels and the amount of tonnage had almost,
without a fraction, doubled in the twenty years. Where
was that to be equalled ? He should hike any gentleman to
name any other part of the world where the increase had
been as great. Even America, where the hon. member for
Manchester had carried his imagination, had not increased
equally. The hon. gentleman could not help referring to
America. " Oh," said the hon. member, 'if India had
fallen into the hands of America how happy would it have
been." Well, he would tell the hon. gentleman the result.
The result would have been that the whole people of India
would have been slaves. Slavery had been abolished by
British rule.
Mr. BRIGHT rose and attempted to speak, but his voice
was drowned amid loud cries of ' Order, order."
Sir J. W. HOGG proceeded. He did not mean to say
that the hon. gentleman wished Indiato be under America,
but the hon. gentleman said if India had been under Ame-
rica there would have been prosperity there which did not
exist now.
Mr. BRlGHT—Traversed by roads.
Sir J. W. HOGG said he did not want to have a discus-
sion about phrases. The point of the hon. gentleman, if
he had any point, was that India would have been more
prosperous under the Americans. He (Sir J. W. Hogg)
wanted to show that India would not have been better
under America, and he said that perhaps they would not
have had slavery abolished, and slavery was now abolished.
Well, he had given them the exports from Great Britain,
and he would now give them the exports from India. In
1834-5 they amounted to 2,262,381/., in 1849-50 t 07,578,980/.,
an increase from two millions to seven, omitting the odd
figures, upwards of three times the amount. That showed
how hard it was to please the right hon. gentleman. The
hon. member said there had been a great increase of e
x-
ports, but that the whole or the greater portion of the i
crease consisted of cotton goods.
Sir That was a funny
dcoin-
plaint to come from him, but he ( J. W. Hogg) amit-
ted that in the very breath in which the hon. gentleman
made that complaint he assigned a reason for it. He said
cotton goods were very cheap, and that the little the native
required for his garment was purchased for a trifle, and
Manchester could send it cheap. He (Sir J. W. Hogg) did
not complain of that, but when that was explained the hon.
,caintleman still was not satisfied, and never would be.
(Cheers.) He believed in his conscience if anybody could
inflict on the hon. gentleman the feeling of satisfaction and
contentment he would be the cleverest man in existence.
The hon. member could not make any more about imports
of this
and exports to India, but he said, " see what we send to
the Brazils." He (Sir J. W. Hogg) thought the House of
Commons and the member for Manchester might be satis-
shortly and
&ed. if t
affairs themselves.
they dealt with the finances of India, and the finances
ownlntry, and they might leave the Brazils to settle
going into detail,
the result during 2
their
their state in fila-,He had now told them
the result of their finances, without
Re had got the details, but he had given
great anxiety as wellPaustgood
the
ave
face
an,
eye
ext next
m, tlhei it nw, gahnwei st.thwheeyhraehtal_vviasaas
years.At
well, what was the interest
overy temptation to .
sketch estimate of
to make their affairs ap-
pearwas a deficit, but the result 1851-2 ? There
was a surplus of half a million

and that surplus after paying the expense of the Burmese
war. But were they going backwards ? What was the
result of the present war ? What was the sketch estimate
of 1852-3 ? The hon. member for Manchester was perfectly
correct in the amount he gave of the revenue. The sketch
estimate gave a total for the current year of 292,282,525
rupees, that was 29,228,2821. The charge amounted to
26,317,5261., showing a surplus of 2,910,726. (Cheers.)
But remember that India paid, and always had paid, a
heavy tribute to this country. But after allowing for that
tribute, the estimated surplus for the current year was
nearly half a million, including the estimate for the Bur-
mese war. He said a little while ago that if they prepared
figures in different cycles, unless there was something con-
secutive, that way of putting them would confound any-
body, and, above all, an assembly to whom they were ad-
dressed. The hon. member asked what was the case in
1835, again after five years, and again five years after that;
but he did not conclude, he admitted, with the extrava-
gant statement made by another hon. member when he
spoke of the bankruptcy of India. His idea of bankruptcy
must have been a whimsical one. When the hon. member
for Manchester spoke of the increase of the debt, what was
the use of it ? No use at all. If they had shown simul-
taneously with an increase of debt an increase of revenue
there would have been something intelligible about it.
The revenue had increased in proportion, notwithstanding
all the wars, and the proportion of debt to revenue was
greater than at any period the hon. member had dwelt
upon, as he thought, so triumphantly. The revenue is
now 29,000,0001. In 1834, the total debt, including the
bond debt, was 38,086,0001. Now, in round figures, it was
50,000,0001. There they had an increase in twenty years
of 15,344,0001. The increase in revenue was in an infinitely
greater proportion. In 1839, after some years of peace,
the debt was only 31,900,0001., and the increase from 1839
to the present time was 18,812,0001. He mentioned that
to show what India could do in time of peace and what
India suffered in time of war. But who was responsible
for the war in 1839—was it the Court of Directors ? (Mr.
Bright—No.) No, said the hon. member for Manchester ;
he cleared the Court of Directors. (Hear, hear, from Mr.
Bright.) He believed they disapproved it ; but if that
were so, if the Minister of the Crown were responsible for
that war and for all the wars, was it not a strange mode
of remedying the evil to take away the power from the
Court altogether, and to give it to that power which caused
the wars ? (Cheers.) The Affghan war was not an In-
dian war ; it arose for European purposes, and it ought
to have been defrayed out of European resources.
(Hear, hear, from Mr. Bright.) Well, then, restore
the 15 millions that it cost--(laughter)—restore that
15 millions, and then call on them as loudly as they
pleased to diminish taxes and to increase public works.
But oppressed with debt, not oppressed, because they
could not say a man was oppressed by debt who had
the means of paying, and what was a debt which did not
absorb two years' income. The Duke of Wellington was
gone, his voice was no longer heard in the walls of Parlia-
ment, no longer would he guide the councils of his sove-
reign and his country, but his wisdom would long survive,
and he would read to them what the Duke of Wellington
said when a question similar to that raised by the hon.
member for Manchester was discussed. The duke said,
" I will not presume to say how many millions of people
you govern. You have an annual revenue of twenty mil-
lions, and notwithstanding all the wars you have been en
gaged in, its debt at this moment amounts only toforty mil-
lions, being no more than two years' revenue. Ido not
say that such a debt is desirable ; but at the same time I
do say that it is a delusion on the people of this country
to tell them it is a slur on the proceedings of a Govern-
ment which has carried on the affairs of the Government
with so much success." He had told them the cost of the
Burmese war. A great deal has been said about what
would be the expense of that war. At first it was said
the cost would be 150,0001. a month. The cost was
30,0001. When the further troops were sent, the estimated
cost was 50,0001. a month. He believed the extra cost
would not much exceed 100,0001. Ha held in his hand the
estimate for the Burmese war for 1852-3. The estimate
was a little above 600,0001., the whole expense of the Bur-
mese war. The hon. member made one complaint about
the debt. He said they borrowed money to pay their di-
vidends in England. Suppose they did ; surely he did not
complain if they had not money to pay their dividends,
that they should borrow it. They liked to be honest. But
the hon. gentleman was quite wrong, as the dividends
were the first charge on the Indian revenues; and if the
dividends were the first charge upon 20,000,000, how could
they say they borrowed money to pay the dividends ?
Mr. BRIGHT.—I said you borrowed as much as would
pay the dividend.
Sir J. W. HOGG.—They did not borrow money to pay
the dividend. The hon. member said it for effect ; but his
desire was to take away the effect and to state the thing
simply and in an unglossed manner. It had been said why
were the dividends a first charge, and why should they be
paid out of the territorial revenue ? He said it was fair,
because when the compromise was made it was estimated,
but the amount of commercial assets spent in government
expenses far exceeded any amount that would be caused
by the payments of dividends. On this point he would
read to them a considerable authority. When something
similar was said in the House of Lords, Lord Ellenborough
said the East India Company gave to India, to its territo-
rial revenue, in diminution of its charges, a great part of
the result of its commercial assets. He thought India had
no reason to complain of that. The hon. and learned gen-
tleman had said his right hon. friend had glossed over the
question of land tenures. He (Sir J. Hogg) did not think
so. It was true his right hon. friend had not gone inao
all the details of those tenures, and God forbid he
should. (Hear, hear, and a laugh.) But the
honourable and learned gentleman had made the most
extraordinary complaint, not of the Court of Directors or
of the local government of India, but of that which was the
whole system of Asia. The hon. gentleman said, "Why,
you derive your whole revenue from land." To be sure
they did ; and it was the custom not of India only, but
throughout the earth—(hear, hear)—and the hon. gentle-
man must recollect that one of the political economists he
had himself quoted said that this system of drawing the
revenue from land was the best system of revenue in the
whole world, for under that people in effect paid no taxes.
the revenue being collected in the shape of rent. He had
heard and read much of late about tenures in India, but he
had heard no single argument, nor received a single suggestion
which he did not find more powerfully put forward the
minutes and reports of the government and public servants
at the very time that this tenure was formed. It had been
the fashion, he knew, to say that Lord Cornwallis settled
this question of tenure rashly, and that he sacrificed the
rights of the ryots. That was not true. Whatever might
be the opinion as to Lord Cornwallis's acts, they were not
taken without due consideration ; and certainly the rights
of the ryots had not been sacrificed, for no ryot could be
removed from his holding while he paid a fixed government
rent. But then it was said there was an annual revision,
and the consequence was that the ryot did not know in any
one year what he would have to pay in the next. It was
true there was an annual revision; but the object of that
was that the ryot should not be called upon to pay for
land which, from any cause, was not cultivated, and that
allowance might be made in cases of drought and other
circumstances which occasioned him loss. It had been
asked by the hon. and learned gentleman why not extend
the north-western system to Madras and -Bombay ? Let
the hon. and learned gentleman ask Sir G. Clerk, Mr.
Halliday, and others, who had spent the greater portion of
their lives in India. Had the hon. gentleman the expe-
rience of those authorities who were asked the question
before the committee he would not have asked the ques-
tion, but it was knowledge alone that made a man con-
scious of his ignorance. (Hear, hear.)
Mr. PHILLIMORE begged the hon. gentleman's pardon.
(Order. order.) He wished to explain. (Order, order.)
He had not asked that question.
Sir J. HOGG—If the hon. gentleman did not say so, he
had misunderstood him, but he had taken down his words,
and certainly understood him to ask the question why the
north-west system was not extended to Madras and
Bombay.
Mr. PHILLIMGRE—What I did say was that it was a
proof that the old system was wrong, inasmuch as they
adopted a different one in the new provinces, but I never
dreamt of saying anything so absurd as that the north-
western system should be extended to Bombay and
Madras.
Sir J. HOGG contended there was a system of revision
in connexion with this tenure. By the law of India every
Hindoo family was a joint family, and the tenure was joint,
and when the man died each member had a right to his
undivided share, so that the tendency of the tenure
was always to subdivision, but this was a system
which, while it was well adapted to a rude state of
society, was not suited to a more advanced stage of civili
sation. The hon. member for Manchester referred to
cotton. Upon that subject he would touch very briefly,
for there had been a committee over which the hon. mem-
ber presided, of which he (Sir J. Hogg) was a member, and
in the report of which he was happy to say he, together
with the hon. member for Manchester, fully concurred.
That report described the exertions which the India Com-
pany had made to advance the cultivation of cotton in
India, sometimes with more and at others with less suc-
cess; but, after all, the question of the cultivation of cotton
in India was one of market and of price. (Hear, hear.)
The Indians cultivated cotton for their own use and for ex-
portation to China, but they did not ship it to this country,
because it was well known that the market here depended
upon the goodness or badness of the crop of the United
States. If the United States crop was bad there was a
market here for Indian cotton, but if the United States
crop was good there was not. If it really desired to en-
courage the growth of cotton in India, why did they not
make the market certain, as was done in the case of indigo,
the grower of which knew beforehand, that if he laid out
a certain quantity of land in the growth of indigo, he was
sure to be paid for his labour, and the charge of cultiva-
tion. Sir T. Munroe, at the bar of that house, had said
that the cultivation of grain in India was more profitable
thaw that of cotton. Then the questions of income and
revenue were inseparably connected with the question of
the cultivation of cotton, but if in place of debating and
discussing the subject in that house, Manchester intelli-
gence and Manchester capital once found its way to the cotton
growing districts in the neighbourhood of Bombay and
other parts of India, and insured a fair price to the culti-
vator, cotton would be cultivated in precisely the same
way that indigo was. At the same time it must not be
lost sight of, that until they had a railway to Bombay, the
cost of bringing down the cotton to the place of shipment
would operate to a considerable extent against its success-
ful cultivation. The hon. member for Manchester also said
that as they had heard nothing of the condition of the ryots
in Bengal, they were doubtless worse off than they were in
Bombay, and he founded his statement on the reports of
Indian newspapers. He would refer the hon. gentleman
to an authority of the same description, the Calcutta Re-
view, which, in a recent article, saidithat what struck the
aye on passing through Bengal was the exuberant fruitful-
ness of the soil, the total absence of anything like want or
famine, and the comfort and contentment of the villagers.
(Hear.) Then the hon. gentleman dwelt on the sal Wax.
That was an onerous tax no doubt, but it was the only tax
the people paid. But here too the hon. gentleman quoted
the authority of an Indian newspaper, showing that the
people were in effect deprived by this tax of an impor-
tant necessary of life, and that notwithstanding the
system introduced the consumption of salt had diminished.
Quoting from the Friend of India, the hon. gentleman
stated that—" In the year 18t9-50, the consumption was
205,517 tons; in 1850-51, 186,410 tons; and in 1851-52,
146,069 tons. Thus, in the short period of three years,
there had been a decrease in the consumption amounting to
59,444 tons, which would involve a loss to the revenue of
416,1361. Salt was one of those articles that people would
use as much of as they could afford, and the diminution in
the consumption appeared to him to be a decided proof of
the declining condition of the population, and that must
affect adversely the revenue of the Indian government."
That statement startled him (Sir J. Hogg) when he heard
it, for if it were true, the deduction of the honourable
gentleman was irresistible. Salt was undoubtedly a nt-ces-
sary of life to those who lived almost exclusively on vege-
table diet. The hon. gentleman said the duty had in-
creased, the revenue had diminished, and the consumption
had fallen off. But how was it possible for the consump-
tion to have fallen off while the revenue had increased with
a reduced duty? (Hear, hear.) But the 'hon. gentleman
might hoe) informed himself better on the subject had he
taken the trouble; for tin same mail, and he presumed in