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

StitT\LONDON, FRIDAY, JULY 15, 1836.

August, 1807 ; all negotiation 'failed, and in September
Copenhagen was bombarded and set fire to in
many places. A capitulation was entered into,
cnd the fleet and town was given up to the English.
In consequence of the stipulations then made, the Danish
fleet, and the whole of their naval stores were given up,
and he entreated the attention of the House to a state-
ment of what was given up as somewhat material.—(Hear.)
In the dispatch of Lord Gambier it was stated that in con-
sequence of these stipulations there were delivered up to
the British fleet, 19 sail of the line, 9 frigates, 14 sloops,
with all the large shipping, containing with the rest 92 car-
goes. On the 3d of October the British armament came
away, and the British commerce in the Baltic was thus left
totally unprotected. The Danish Commandant then
issued a proclamation to the effect that hostilities
having been commenced on the part of England,
be declared, by virtue of the highest authority that all
English propertd should be placed under sequestration. In
the meantime there was an Order in Council of the '2d of
September, 1827, to the effect that all Danish vessels in
ports of England should be laid under an embargo, and
orders were directed to all captains in his Majesty's service
to bring in all vessels belonging to Denmark, that should
be found on the high seas, and coming from the Colonies,
or other ports, and that such vessels should be placed under
an embargo.

(LEFT SPEAKING.)

IMPERI 4L PARLIAMENT.

ROUSE OF COMMONS, JuLr 14.

CONSTABULARY (IRELAND).
On the motion of Lord MORPETH, the Constabulary
Act (Ireland) Amendment Bill was read a third time and
passed. _ _

moved a series of resolutions, in conformity with the heads
of his speech.
Sir J. C. HOBHO USE could assure his Hon. Friend
that he had given his attention to the matter to which the
petitioners referred. He owed to the kindness of his Hon.
Friend the opportunity of looking over the petition which
was now brought before the House. Now in looking
over the allegations contained in that petition, he could not,
he was bound to say, think that the situation of India was
as desperate as the petitioners seemed to consider it.—
(Hear.)
Some time, he thought, ought at least to have
been given, to see how the new charter operated. The
main complaint made in the petition, and what ap-
peared to be the source of it altogether, was that alle-
gation to which the Hon. Gentleman had first alluded.
That was the 43d section of the new charter, and by
which the power vested in the Supreme Court of India
was now taken away from them. To give effect to the
regulations of the Governor, it was necessary they should
be registered in the Supreme Court. Now this was a
subject which underwent a severe scrutiny in that House
—whether or not that Court should have a concurrent au-
thority with the supreme Government. In consequence of the
unanswerable arguments advanced by Lord Glenelg and
Mr. Macauley this new section was introduced into the
charter, and by which it was declared that no longer should
a Court of Justice have that which in his opinion it ought not
to have, a concurrent authority with the supreme power of
the State. Any one who looked at India must be aware
that many of the mischiefs which had arisen in that coun-
try were owing to this very power being lodged with the
Supreme Court. He was sure that the Hon. Member for
Middlesex must confess that it was best to have authority
vested in the Supreme Government ; and in cases of emer-
gency, in the Governor-General of India. It was for the
benefit of the Government and the governed that there
should be a centralization of the supreme power in one high
authority. What did the complaint amount to after all ?
Whereas, according to the old system, Government was
able to legislate for the whole of India, with the exception
of some districts, it would now legislate for all India, includ-
ing those districts. Nothing could bemore absurd than the
complaint, that because a provision had been made to do
equal justice to Europeans and natives, they, therefore, la-
' mented that there was a law for all—that Europeans and
natives should be tried by the same tribunals, and no
exception made in favour of any one class.—(Hear,
hear, hear.) Another point touched upon by his
Honourable Friend was the abomination of Heyleybury,
and the not giving promotion to the natives. The Act was
only nine months in operation, and yet these petitioners
took upon themselves to declare that it was not the inten-
tion to promote natives. Now he could say that the very
contrary was the intention of the Government, and he was
sure that it would be fully acted upon by the Noble Lord
now at the head of the Indian Government. With respect to
Heyleybury, he could say for himself, that he felt exceed-
, ingly unwilling to do away with an institution intended to
form young men for filling situations of great importance in
that vast empire, of which they had the government. If,
however, it should appear that it was not proper to continue
that establishment, then he should be prepared to do away
with it. Now, as to the ecclesiastical establishment, he was
not answerable for it. It was commenced in 1813, and
there had been only added upon that ground by his Hon.
Friend an additional charge of 1,0001. a year. He had
yet to learn, however, that it was not proper to allocate a
portion of their revenues to an establishment for the pur-
pose of propagating Christianity. The native to whom re-
ference bad already been made, said he felt no interest in
the religion for which the money was given. Why he
(Sir J. C. Hobbouse), did not know that the same person
felt an interest in the Government, and therefore might
object to pay taxes to it.—(Hear, hear.) That person
might prefer the Rayabs, or the Mussulmen, as his rulers
—and if they were to consult the persons over whom
they ruled, they would never be able to lay on a tax ; they
could not raise a tax but for an object purely national, and
in that case they would in a short time have to give up
taxes altogether.—( Hear.) His Hon. Friend complained
that dividends were secured by Act of Parliament. Why,
that was part of the bargain. They were at all events
bound to secure their property, which had previously never
been in danger. His Hon. Friend said that the Board of
Control had nothing to do ; he assured him they bad a
great deal to do. The duties he had to discharge were
greater than in any of the offices he previously held.
Another part of the complaint was, that there was 21 per
cent. charged upon English manufactures, and 30 per cent.
upon Indian manufactures. How would the Indians like
an equalization of the duty, by raising that imposed upon
the English to be equal to theirs ? Was that what his
Hon. Friend complained of ? He was certain that he
should have no objection if his Right Hon. Friend the
President of the Board of Trade could lower the duties.
—( Hear, hear.) His Honourable Friend then com-
plained that there was nothing done with respect to the
duty on salt. Why, taking, into consideration the very
large revenue received from it, it was very natural that
they should be apprehensive in touching ft.—(l-fear.)
His Honourable Friend had stated the revenues of India
incorrectly ; he gave 22,000,000/. as the revenues of India.
They were, in fact, 18,350,0001., and salt comprised a
very considerable item in that revenue. Opium, also, to
which his Hon. Friend had adverted, was another conside-
rable item. Were they, then, prepared to take away at
once those two taxes without some substitute for them ?
(Hear, hear.) He was sorry to add that, instead of a
large, there would be a very small, surplus from India.—
(Hear, hear.)
Mr. HOGG had read the petition now before the
House, but did not find in it one word or one topic com-
prised in the resolution which they were now called upon to
move. There was nothing, for instance, about either salt
or opium in it. No doubt any commercial monopoly was
a grievance, but be did not consider the salt tax such a
monopoly ; it was merely and purely a means of collecting
a revenue. He hoped the Hon. President of the Board of
Trade would consent to admit a little of his principle of
free trade and reciprocity into operation with regard to
India.

Mr. J. M'KENZIE said that when the resources of
India were fully developed, the people of this country
would be surprised at the ignorance under the operation of
which they had so long been induced to uphold the exclu-
sive system with regard to India.
Mr. P. THOMPSON thought the Hon. Member for
Middlesex was hardly excuseable from the charge of inad-
vertence at least, for presenting a petition the allegations of
which he knew to be unfounded. He denied the fact that
a system of discriminating duties was kept up in regard to
India. At the time this petition was framed, there were
not more than three articles upon which discriminating
duties existed between the West and East Indies—namely,
spirit, sugar, and tobacco ; and that upon sugar was now
in course of being reduced. \Vith respect to spirits, he
did not mean to say that he would have any great objection
to reduce the duties upon them, but because that had not
been done hitherto, was that any reason why it might not
still be done some future day? As to tobacco, he was in-
clined to look upon it in a very different light—namely, as,
a most important revenue article, 3,000/. worth of it pro-
ducing a revenue of 3,000,000/. If this duty was to be
taken off, they would have immediately to seek elsewhere
for some other article on which to levy a higher duty, in
order to make up the deficiency. In conclusion, he must
repeat that he thought he had a right to complain of this
attempt to raise a grievance where none really existed. He
felt sure that the conduct of Government, during the last
few years, was such as to show that they had the greatest
anxiety to afford every possible measure of relief, and to
consult, in every way, the interests of our East India con-
nections.—(Hear, hear.)
Mr. BUCKINGHAM approvedgenerally of the course
which the Government of this country had of late years
adopted towards our Indian connections, and he trusted
they would be induced to follow up what they had al-
ready done by taking off the remaining duties which still
pressed upon them.
The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER said,
that the principle upon which the Government had acted
towards the Indian settlements was precisely that which
had been fully explained to those connected with those
interests in the first instance, and which had been fully and
cordially acquiesced in by them. That principle was,
that they had to make their election between being an
exporting or an importing country, but that both they
could not justly be.
After a few words from Mr. A. CHAPMAN and an.
other Member, which were inaudible,
Mr. HUME replied.
The resolutions were severally negatived without a di-
vision.