The Sun.
London, England, 1851-06-20 00:00:00

PUBLIC WAYS IN GUZERAT.

Colonel DneKr;sON then brought forward the mo-
tion of which he had given notice,—That a fixed per
tentage on the revenue death collectorate in Guzerat
be annually expended for the improvement and ex-
tension of the public ways throughout that province.
The people of that province were at one time in a
state of great prosperity, but by degrees a great de-
cadence of that prosperity had taken place, which
justified him in asking for a special grant for toe
amelioration of the condition of the agricultural popu-
lation of the four collectorates into which the pro-
vince was divided. After showing hew those col-
lectorates had been impoverished by fire and inun-
dation, as well as by the competition to which they
were exposed in the markets of Europe by the
introduction of American cotton, the consequence of
which had been to take the riots out of the hands of
the landlords, who were always considerate in their
dealings with them, and to expose them to a set of
rapacious money-lenders, the Hon. and Gallant Pro-
prietor proceeded to describe the want of roads or any
other means of communication for the conveyance of
the cotton produce of those districts to the western
seaboard of Bombay. Guzerat was the garden of India,
and what New Orleans was to America Surat was to
Guzerat. It was unquestionably the finest portion of
British India. Half the Indian cotton imported into
the English market came from Guzerat, and yet there
had not been a single public work undertaken during
the 50 years since that portion of India had been in
our possession from which the natives could derive
any benefit. It was very unpleasant to him to differ
from their respected Deputy-Chairman (Sir James
Hogg), but he thought what that Honourable Baro-
net said in the House of Commons, in June last, as
to the excellent state of the roads of Guzerat was very
erroneous. The Honourable Member then read ex-
tracts from a pamphlet written by a Mr. Williams, who
described the roads in Guzerat to be so narrow that
only one cart could pass at a time, that they were full
of hollows and deep ruts, and that for three months in
the year, namely, duringthe monsoon, they were utterly
impassable ; so that the carts were in some of the col-
lectorates obliged to make detours of several miles.
The plea for allowing this state of things to exist was
that there were no materials on the spot for making
roads ; but it appeared from the reports of officers
employed to survey the country, and who were well
acquainted with geology, that there were abundant
materials for that purpose. If any further delay were
allowed before teking steps for the improvement of
the public roads in India, the chances were that Ame-
rica would supplant ue in the China trade. Vigorous
measures were necessary to meet the evil, and to
secure to ourselves the natural advantages which the
country possessed. An American merchant having
walked over the grounds of one of the estates at
Amedabad, the capital of Guzerat, where the cotton
crops were growing, was quite startled, and declared
that he had never seen such cotton. It was a curious
fact that throughout the whole discussions of the
cotton committee no allusion was made to Amedabad,
although it was the finest and most productive cotton
district in India, and from which 91,000 bales were
exported last year. Tramways might be laid down
at an expense of not more than 7001. to 8001. a mile.

Mr. .L-Lwirg seconded the motion.
The CHAIRMAN said, the motion was contrary to
the usual rule of governicg a country, and he did not
think his Hon. and Gallant Friend had made out a
special case for departing from that rule. He could
not allow the statement of the Hon. and Gallant
member as to the neglected condition of the roads in
Guzerat to pass unnoticed. He (the Chairman) was
in possession of a letter from a Mr. Davey, the col-
lector of one of the collectorates, stating that, with
the exception cf the three months during the monsoon
there was no difficulty in getting from Guzerat to
Bombay. The Hon. and Gallant Proprietor had
spoken of an American gentleman. He (the Chair-
man) presumed that Mr. Haigh was the gentleman
referred to. Now Mr. Haigh had, within these few
days, stated distinctly that the facilities for communi-
cation from that district with the coast were admi-
rable ; and that a very little outlay would make those
means of transit excellent. The Hon. and Gallant
Colonel would no doubt be glad to hear that the ex-
penditure had been recommended by the Court of
Directors. The Government of India were alive to
the necessity of maintaining public works in that
country. The other day no less than 50 lace of
rupees were appropriated for the construction of such
works at Madras and Bengal. Everything was being
done for facilitating communication between the dif-
ferent portions of India, the Government being per-
fectly aware of the importance of that great object.
lie therefore hoped the Court would see the propriety
of rejecting the present motion.
An Hon. PROPRIETOR suggested that after the
very satisfactory explanation of the Chairman, it
would be becoming on the part of the Hon. and Gallant
Mover to withdraw his motion.

Mr. SULLIVAN said, the Chairman had it in his
power to put his Hon. and Gallant Friend entirely out
of court by producing the accounts of the expenditure
made for the construction and improvement of roads
in India.

Sir J. Hoc() observed, that every statement made
by him in the House of Commons as to the condition
or the ways of communication in India was founded
upon the reports of collectors in India.
Colonel OLIPHANT said, it might seem strange why
during three months of the year,
when the roads were
required to be made, that they were not made ; but
the fact was, that during the monsoon the natives did
not travel, as their goods would be exposed to the wet.
This was the reason why the Government of India
did not do what, under other circumstances, they
might deem it necessary to do.
After some further discussion, the motion WES
withdrawn.

In answer to a question from Mr. LEwIN,
The CHAIRMAN stated, that the Bill introduced
into Parliament for granting compensation to Mr. J.
S. Buckingham had been withdrawn.

MR. J. S. BUCKINGHAM'S CASE.
Mr. LEwIN wished to make an observation upon the
case of Mr. Silk Buckingham' who, in his ocinion,
had really made the press of India free, and to auk
what view the Court took.

The CHAIRMAN said the Bill brought before Par-
liament by Mr. Buckingham had been withdrawn.

RIGHTS OF NATIVE PRINCES.
Colonel DICKENSON then brought forward his mo-
tion—" That a list be prepared, with as little delay
as possible, and laid before the Court of Proprietors,
of those native states with which treaties have been
entered into by the British Government, the chiefs of
which are thereby deprived of any of the rights or
privileges of adoption without the consent of the pa-
ramount power." Lord Ellenborough's proclamation
must lead to the ruin and demoralisation of the native
princes. He would cite the case of the Nabob of
Surat with whom the company entered into a treaty
after his dethronement in 1800. If the treatment
complained of had taken place after a war, there might
have been some excuse for severity. The Hon. Pro-
prietor then quoted the Calcutta Review in support of
his argument, and said that Mr. Duggan had affirmed
that the rights of the Nabob's family were secured.
The Nabob died in 1842, and 1846 arrived without
anything being done for his family, though they were
led to hope and expect that there would have been.
One of the Nabob's nephews writes afterwards that
ho had received a small sum, but that it went imme-
diately to pay creditors, and God only knew when
his claims would be settled. The Government, in
order to justify their acts, passed a measure through
the Legislature which put it out of the power of the
native princes to obtain redress. They had shut the
door to all possible appeal, and cases of the kind he
was citing would be of every-day occurrence with
Indian families, owing to Lord Ellenborough's pro-
clamation. He (Colonel Dickenson) wished that
those families should see what would be their fate.
There would be endless appeals, but only give the
families notice what would be their fate when the
time arrived that they were to lose their inde-
pendence.
Mr. LEWIN rather thought the Court would ob-
ject to give a list of those whose independence had
been forfeited, because it would involve the necessity
of giving also a list of those who were not deprived.
The case of the Raja of Lahore, which had been cited
in Parliament, was in point. Not only his territory
and revenue, but even his regalia, had been taken away,
and part of it—the Koh-i-noor—was in the Exhi-
bition.
The CHAIRMAN felt it impossible to divine the ob-
ject of the motion. It was, however, rather remark-
able that the Hon. and Gallant Colonel should have
quoted a case in illustration of his object which could
not by possibility apply, for Surat was a Mahomedan
state, where adoption was impossible. The Nawaub
died without heirs, leaving daughters, one of whom
married, and the property of the deceased Nawaub
was given to the son-in-law, with the exception of that
portion of it which was necessary for keeping up the
dignity of the Nawaub, that title having ceased to exist.
He (the Chairman) might however say that there
were no treaties of the nature mentioned in the notice
of motion. Adoption, it was true, required the sanc-
tion of the paramount power ; and that was occasion-
ally withheld, but it was not by virtue of any treaty
that such a power existed. The Chairman, in refer-
ence to the recent occurrences in the Punjaub, said
that the public were aware that the procedure of the
Indian Government in the Punjaub was one of neces.