The Sun.
London, England, 1870-05-11 00:00:00

THE SUN, LONDON, WEDNESDAY, MAY 11, 1870.

of England to elevate and civilise those nations with
whom it came in contact ; but instead of that we had
afflicted China with the greatest possible evils, and in his
opinion, " according to the doctrine of retributive Provi-
dence, and those principles of justice and right, would
suffer as a nation."

Mr. C. B. DENISON said that eight millions sterling of
the revenue of India was derived from opium. What
would be the result, he asked, if they cut off so large a
portion of revenue ? In the words of a previous speaker,
they must remember that if they took a high moral view
view of the question they must be prepared to suppress
entirely the cultivation of opium. Not only would the
revenue suffer in the extreme, but the trade of England,
India, and China would become disorganised. He urged
all those who had the interests of the three countries at
heart to pause ere they voted for the motion. He believed
that the loss of so much revenue would lead to the stop-
page of public works in India.

Mr. W. FOWLER remarked that if the House were con-
vinced that the action of the Government was wrong
they ought to stop it, and let the trade of the country
take care of itself. He believed that they would not be
able to go on spending £6,000,000 on public works if they
were suddenly to lose the revenue from opium ; but never-
theless he hoped that the House would by an emphatic
vote declare that it would not sanction what it believed to
be wrong for the sake of money or trade.
Mr. MONTAGUE CHAMBERS supported the motion in a
very cordial manner, and declared that the Chinese Go-
vernment had remonstrated with England on the subject
of the opium trade, and we actually had had a war with
China in consequence. He hoped the House would say by
resolution that the British nation did not countenance the
cultivation of opium.
Mr. GRANT-DUFF said the member for Carlisle asked
them to take one of the gravest steps they could with re-
ference to our position in Asia. He did not know
whether the hon. member himself was aware of the tre-
mendous character of the proposition which he had sub-
mitted. He was very sure, and some of his supporters
were not. The Indian opium during the five years the ac-
counts had been laid before Parliament brought in, after
all expenses were paid, an average net revenue of
£5,781,890. In the year 1867-8 the net revenue was
£7,049,447. One of 'three results must follow from the
beneficence of the hon. member. In the first place, India
must receive from an extraneous quarter another subsidy
equal in extent to that sum which the hon. member wished
to withdraw from the revenue, or, in the next place, an
enormous new tax must be levied upon India. The third
alteanative was that instead of proceeding with public
works in India as they now did, the progress would be so
slow that every well-wisher of the country would be driven
to the verge of despair. With regard to the first alterna-
tive, he did not believe that the already heavily burdened
British taxpayers would submit to pay £6,000,000 annually
as a subsidy to India. With regard to the second, he
asked whether it would be tolerable to impose a heavy tax
upon the people merely to enforce views of morality ?
With regard to giving up the enormous lever
for assisting the prosperity of India which
they possessed in the opium trade he asked
whether it would not be wise to reconsider our con-
nection with india. Even now we were surrounded by
difficulties, and the question would be whether it would
not be adisable to give up an empire which we could no
longer properly support for want of means. If the revenue
derived from opium were suddenly taken away India
would be on the verge of bankruptcy, and even the gradual
diminution of the revenue could not but be regarded in
the gravest manner. The right hon. gentleman described
the sources of revenue derived from opium. He ques-
tioned whether injurious results arose from the moderate
use of opium, and cited authorities in support of his
opinion. Opium, he said, was not so black as it was
painted, and he moved the previous question.
Mr. KINNAIRD supported the original motion. He re-
marked that he had no objection to the cultivation of
opium in India, but he wished to free the country from the
responsibility of cultivating it.

Mr. D. DALRYMPLE said if the hon. member for Carlisle
would only let the matter rest, the moral stigma which
was attempted to be cast upon the Indian Government
would cure itself by the Chinese becoming their own pro-
ducers.

Mr. GLADSTONE said that if • the House were prepared
to affirm the motion they ought to prepare to enter into
a matter of account with the Indian Government and
Council, to settle and determine upon its own responsi-
bility in what way those relations were to be reconciled,
which would undoubtedly be disturbed if the motion were
carried. The proposition ought not to be adopted, at all
events not without a previous and careful Parliamentary
enquiry ; an enquiry which must embrace many points
upon which the hon. gentleman had hardly touched, such
as the nature of opium, and how far the use was necessar-
ily connected with the abuse. Few things could be more
discreditable to the House than to pass a vote which
either, on the one hand, must remain an idle expression of
opinion without any practical results; or else if it had,
must simply have the effect of throwing the finances of
India into confusion, and greatly compromise the condi-
tion, the welfare, and even possibly the peace and security
of that country. His hon. friend did not wish them to
stop the cultivation of opium, but to cease to derive re-
venue from it.

Mr. HENLEY expressed his opinion that people in Eng-
land made " beasts" of themselves by drinking gin, as
much as did the Chinese by opium.
Sir WILFRED LAWSON, in reply, reminded the P remier
that he had quoted from medical authorities to show that
opium was injurious. It was not his duty to show how
the loss might be made up, and he thought the country
would be astonished to hear the political morality which
had been enunciated from the Treasury benches.
A division took place on the proposition " that the
question be now put." The result was :

Ayes
Noes
The previous question was negatived.
THE INCOME TAX.

Mr. WHALLEY moved that a Select Committee be ap-
pointed to inquire into the mode of assessing the income tax
under Schedule B, and as to the practicability of providing
for the revenue raised therefrom, whereby, having due re-
gard to existing liabilities, the injury resulting alike to
indivduuls and the public under the present system may be
avoided.

Mr. STANSFELD, on the part of the Government, opposed
the motion, which was negatived.

THE REPRESENTATION OF SLIGO.

CO:011e1 FIUNCH moved that the Speaker issue his war-
rant to the Clerk of the Crown in Ireland to make out a new
writ for the electing of a burgess to serve in the present
Parliament for the borough of Sligo, in the room of Major
Knox, whose election had been determined to be void.

The SOLICITOR-GENERAL for IRELAND said the matter was
under the consideration of the Government, and iu the
course cf a few days they would be prepared to state what
course they would take.
The motion was ultimately withdrawn.
CONVEST UAL AND MONASTIC INSTITUTIONS.

The following were nominated by Mr. Gladstone the
Select Committee on Conventual and Monastic Institutions
—Mr. Villiers, Mr. Newdegate, Mr. Jessel, Mr. Thomas
Chambers, Mr. Matthews, Mr. Howes, Mr. Cogan, Mr. Pem-
berton, The O'Conor Don, Mr. Bourke, Mr. Sherlock, Mr.
John Gilbert Talbot, Mr. Pease, Mi. George Gregory, and
Sir John Ogilvy.
Mr. EYKYN moved that it be an instruction to the com-
mittee that within the scope of their inquiries they shall
include Anglican and all other so-called religious institutions
throughout Great Britain, of a conventual or monastic order."
The motion was agreed to.

Mr. MATTHEWS moved "that it be an instruction to the
committee not to inquire into matters which would involve
a criminal charge against any person, or the forfeiture of
any legal or equitable interest in property ; that it be an in-
struction to the committee to inquire and report in the first
instance on the state of the law respecting conventual and
monastic iestitthions or societies in Great Britain,
before proceeding with the other subjects of inquiry
referred to them." His object was to prevent the
inquiry being turned into an inquisition ; that
they should not put witnesses before the committee
and es them to furnish details a d f cti which wou d en-
, ble some mischievous perso i to cause a fort.itu a of Lb it
titl to proi ert' .
Mr. SYNA seconded the motion.
Mr N woi GA E thought t e apprehensions of the hon
gentleman rrere groundless. He regard d the motion as an
att•em}t to limit the scope of the inquiry.
Mr. GLADSTO E thought the motion was a most unfort -
nate on , and he was extremely sorry it had been brought
forward it appeared like a dispositi ,n to check an inquiry
which bad be n d tided u ol by a large m jority of the
Ho se. As the n ember for North Warwick-h re had said
the bon. m mber's fears were groundless
M . HSADLAM thought they might rely on the discretion
f the committee.

Mr. CHARLEY said, acc rding tl Parliamentary practice.
the witne sea would be protec ed from any statemen a they
might make.
Mr HERLOCK remark d tli tape son might decli eto
tell what his t tle to the 0p92 ty might be

After some remarks from 'Mr: Syrian, who was very im-
pe_fectly h ard, . . .

Mr Mat h Ws withdrew his moti n

WINE AND B ERHOUSE ACir (1 69) AMENDMENT

i It L

The House went into c mmittee on this bil , whi h
having been amen ed, pas ed thr ugh ommitte,.
TRAMWAYS ILL

S ver 1 verbal amendm is wer nia e in committee on
this bill, which passed.
The House having isposed f several orders, djourned
at ten minutes t two.