The Sun.
London, England, 1836-07-15 00:00:00

POST-OFFICE.

Mr. WALLACE having been requested to put off his
motion for certain resolutions relative to the Post-office,
which stood upon the paper for that day, with a positive
assurance that the Post-office Bill would come on to-mor-
row, had no objection to postpone his motion till then.
BRITISH POSSESSIONS IN INDIA.

Mr. HUME rose to present the petition of which notice
had been given, relative to the British possessions in India.
He did so in consequence of the arrangement that had been
made last night relative to the subject.
Mr. GOULBURN objected to the Hon. Member's
proceeding, as he believed the understanding of the House
to be that the Government business was to proceed first.
He thought, if the Hon. Member were allowed to proceed,
it would be attended with great inconvenience.
Colonel SIBTHORP also objected to the Hon. Mem-
ber's proceeding.
Sir ROBERT PEEL thought it would be a bad pre-
cedent to allow the Honourable Member to bring for-
ward his motion. He should therefore object to such
a precedent being established, as it might tend to great
partiality. He certainly understood that the Orders of
the Day—those over which the Government bad
controul—were to be taken in a certain order,
and the first intimation he had that it was to be
departed from was, when he was told that the
particular notice of the Hon. Member for Middlesex was
to take precedence.
Mr. H UME said this was a peculiar case, and he had
stated so when he presented the petitions. He then got
leave to bring his motion on yesterday, but gave way to
the Noble Lord, the Secretary for the Home Department,
who promised that he would not throw any obstacle in
the way to-night.
Sir R. PEEL said it was not a matter of per-
sonal inconvenience to himself, but he could not allow
it to be drawn into a precedent. The Hon. Gentleman
said he had only two notices for that night, but it was to
be remembered that there were 658 Members in the
House, and if they had all taken the same course
as him, how could the business of the House go on ? Be-
sides it ought not to be in the power of any Hon. Member,
by any arrangement to bring on his petition notices in such
an irregular manner. He would content himself at present
with merely entering his protest against the precedent.
Mr. HUME asked the matter merely as an indulgence,
and not as a right. If the House were against him lie
would not go on.—(Hear, and cries of "Go on.") He
had presented a peition from Calcutta, which was agreed to
at a public meeting, he believed the first one which had
ever been called by a Sheriff in that country. When lie
stated that the welfare of 80 millions of people were in-
volved in the petition, they would consider it not as an ordi-
nary one, but as one worthy of important attention. The
petitioners complained of the alterations of the law made
by the late legislation with respect to the charter. Previ-
ous to that period, the Supreme Court was without con-
,troul—they took the protection of all British subjects, and
were not subject to the controul of the Governor or the
Council. By that Act a complete change had been made—the
powers of the Supreme Court were made subservient to the
will of the Governor. There was, he was most happy to
say, no charge made against his Noble Friend, the late
Governor-General (Lord W. Bentinck), but the community
were anxious that their liberties should rest where they had
always done before, in the hands of the Supreme Court of
Judicature, without any control by the Governor in Council.
The Government and Council were not responsible, save
only to that House and to his Majesty. Without notice
or intimation, Acts were passed by which regulatiops were
made by the Government, although those Acts and regula-
tions interfered in a most important way with the liberties,
rights, and properties of the people of India. The petitioners
complained, therefore, that such a state of things should be
allowed to pass that House, by which they were placed out
of the pale of the English Const;tution, and under the
law and pleasure of the Governor-General.—( Hear.)
They had seen Governors-General in many parts of their
colonial territories behaving in such a manner, that he was
sure that many who had witnessed their proceedings in
the Colonies, would be very unwilling to leave their
most important colony at their disposal. What the peti-
tioners prayed for was, that this House should at an
early period take into consideration the laws made
by the granting of the Charter, and that they would again
place them under the protection of British law, and not leave
them under the authority and will of the Governor-General.
After the abuses in the Government of Mr. Hastings, that
House had decided, as the only and best means of pro-
tecting the rights of British subjects, that the Supreme
Court should be armed with power, independent of
the Governor-General of India.—.(Hear, hear, hear.)
If the House had thought it requisite to pass the law of
which these petitioners complained, he hoped they would
take an early opportunity of revising it. In that country
there were upwards of a million of persons under the protec-
tion of the British laws, which had been withdrawn with-
out any notice. The petitioners complained that by the
43d section, absolute power was given of such a nature
that it could not exist with any thing like satisfaction or
comfort to the community over which it was exercised.
They complained that the Act had been passed
solely and exclusively for the benefit of individuals
at home, and of the East India Company, without reference
to the interests of India or the great bulk of itsjpopulation.
A clause had been introduced (the 82d) giving Me natives
power to bold office, but such was the nature of the restric-
tions they were subjected to, that that admis-
sibility had hitherto remained a dead letter.
They said that the House was little attentive to their in-
terests ; that they had given great sums to the Esta-
blished Church 4 but bad done little or nothing for
the Hindoos and natives. The petitioners also complained
that the Act had paid no attention to the promotion of
education or the spread of its advantages in the country.
He (Mr. H.) regretted that the subject of education had
been so much neglected, because he did not know any thing
that was more likely to increase the wealth of the country.
The next point to which he would call the attention of the
House was the commercial disabilities of India. He was
happy to see that the principal article, sugar, had
been met by His Majesty's Government. They
had, in this, acted wisely ; and he only regretted
that their operations had been limited.—(Hear.) It
was extremely objectionable that Bengal alone should
be admitted to this benefit. Every part of their territory,
Madras and Bombay, ought to be admitted, and he hoped
they would. The sooner this monopoly was removed
the better.—(Hear.) He regretted the narrow policy of
this measure, and was sorry that Government did not
take a more comprehensive view of the matter. One
ground of complaint on the part of the natives of India
was, that their trade and manufactures were ruined by the
competition of the English market. English cotton was
admitted into India at 2 per cent., whilst India cotton
was charged here 10 per cent.; and whilst the woollen
manufacturers of India were charged in this country 10,
1,5 and 25 per cent., the woollen manufactures of Eng-
land were admitted into India at a duty of 21 per cent.
He (Mr. Hume) would ask, was this equal justice ?
For instance, why should not rum from India be al-
lowed to be imported at 9s. as well as the Colonies,
in place of 15s. as they now paid ? Why should to-
bacco pay more from India than from other colonies ?
It was the same with black pepper, and many other
articles of immense importance which he would not then men-
tion. He hoped the Government would consider it their duty
to equalize the whole scale of duties next session, in the same
manner in which they bad done that of sugar this session.
There was now a Committee sitting on the article of
Salt. He would say that as the duty was falling off so
very fast, it could not be in a healthy state, and hoped the
Government would take some steps to abolish the monopoly
on so necessary an article of human consumption. The
Hon. Gentleman read extracts from speeches of Ministers in
1833, and he hoped they would early next session carry out
the- promises then made, which would be for the benefit o

this Country, as well as of India. The Hon. Member then